Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-p5w8z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T04:27:16.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Typology and Spatial Conceptualization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Eric Pederson ,
Stephen Levinson ,
Eve Danziger ,
Sotaro Kita ,
David Wilkins  and
Gunter Senft
Eric Pederson*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Stephen Levinson
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Eve Danziger
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Sotaro Kita
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
David Wilkins
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Gunter Senft
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
Eric Pederson, Linguistics Department, 1290 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 [epederso@darkwing.uoregon.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This project collected linguistic data for spatial relations across a typologically and genetically varied set of languages. In the linguistic analysis, we focus on the ways in which propositions may be functionally equivalent across the linguistic communities while nonetheless representing semantically quite distinctive frames of reference. Running nonlinguistic experiments on subjects from these language communities, we find that a population’s cognitive frame of reference correlates with the linguistic frame of reference within the same referential domain.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 557 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Asch, Solomon E., and Witkin, H. A.. 1948. Studies in space orientation 2. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. Journal of Experimental Psychology 38. 455–77.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory, and Mead, Margaret. 1942. Balinese character: A photographic analysis. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent, and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1997. Spatial operations in deixis, cognition, and culture: Where to orient oneself in Belhare. In Nuyts & Pederson, 46–83.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.) 1998. Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 1994. The INs and ONs of Tzeltal locative expressions: The semantics of static descriptions of location. Spatial conceptualization in Mayan languages (Special issue of Linguistics 32.), ed. by Haviland, John B. and Levinson, Stephen C., 743–90.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1993a. ‘Uphill’ and ‘downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3. 46–74.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 1993b. Linguistic and nonlinguistic coding of spatial arrays: Explorations in Mayan cognition. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Working paper no. 24.Google Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, Laura A., and Irwin, David A.. 1993. Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition 46. 223–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, Mary, and von Stutterheim, Christiane. 1993. The representation of spatial configurations in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric expressions. Linguistics 31. 1011–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, ed. by Moore, T. E., 27–63. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. E., and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22. 1–39.Google Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 1994. Out of sight, out of mind: Person, perception and function in Mopan Maya spatial deixis. Linguistics 32. 885–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 1996a. Split intransitivity and active-inactive patterning in Mopan Maya. International Journal of American Linguistics 62. 379–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 1996b. Parts and their counter-parts: Social and spatial relationships among the Mopan Maya. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2. 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 1997. La variation inter-langues dans l’encodage sémantique et cognitif des relations spatiales: Quelques réflexions sur les données du Maya Mopan. Diversité des langues et representations cognitives, ed. by Fuchs, Catherine and Robert, Stephane, 58–80. Paris: Editions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 1998. Cross-cultural studies in language and thought: Is there a meta-language? The psychology of cultural experience, ed. by Moore, C. and Mathews, H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Mathews, H., and Pederson, Eric. 1998. Through the looking-glass: Literacy, writing systems and mirror image discrimination. Written Language and Literacy 1. 153–64.Google Scholar
de León, Lourdes. 1991. Space games in Tzotzil: Creating a context for spatial reference. Working paper no. 4. Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, MPI.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John L, and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.) 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1993. Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3. 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, John, and Dobson, Veronica. 1994. Eastern and Central Arremte to English Dictionary. Alice Springs, Australia: IAD Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Deborah. 1994. Longgu. Semantic primitives and lexical universais. Semantic primitives and lexical universais, ed. by Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna, 311–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hill, Deborah. 1997. Finding your way in Longgu: Geographical reference in a Solomon Islands’ language. In Senft, 143–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1966. Two types of linguistic relativity (with examples from Amerindian ethnography). Sociolinguistics, Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference 1964, ed. by Bright, William, 114–67. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1991 [1768]. On the first ground of the distinction of regions of space. [Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume.] The philosophy of right and left, ed. by Cleve, James van and Frederick, Robert E., 27–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Laughren, Mary. 1978. Directional terminology in Warlpiri. Working papers in language and linguistics, no. 8.1–16. Launceston: Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.Google Scholar
Lee, Dorothy. 1950. The conception of self among the Wintu Indians. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 45 (3). Reprinted in Dorothy Lee. Freedom and culture, 131-40. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1959.Google Scholar
Lee, Penny. 1996. The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. 1984. Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. Limits in perception, ed. by Doom, A. van, Grind, W. de, and Koenderink, J., 323–58. Utrecht: VNU Science Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. Language and space, ed. by Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., Garrett, M., 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1998. Studying spatial conceptualization across cultures. My space or yours: Beyond the individual in the cognitive study of language (Special issue of Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology.), ed. by Danziger, Eve, 7–24.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. In press. The body in space: Cultural differences in the use of body-schema for spatial thinking and gesture. Culture and uses of the body, ed. by Lewis, G. & Sigaut, F.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigaut, F., and Brown, Penelope. 1994. Immanuel Kant among the Tenejapans: Anthropology as empirical philosophy. Ethos 22. 3–41.Google Scholar
Levy, Paulette. 1992a. Body-part prefixes in Papantla Totonac. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45. 527–29.Google Scholar
Levy, Paulette. 1992b. Adjectives in Totonac: Descriptive statement and typological considerations. International Journal of American Linguistics 58. 269–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Paulette. 1994. La base verbal en Totonaco. Investigaciones linguisticas en mesoamerica: Estudios sobre lenguas americanas 1, ed. by MacKay, Carolyn J. and Vazquez, Veronica, 227–62. Mexico City: Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas, IIF, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.Google Scholar
Lucy, John A. 1992a. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, John A. 1992b. Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, John A. 1996. The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In Gumperz & Levinson, 37–69.Google Scholar
Lucy, John A. 1997. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:291-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacLaury, Robert E. 1995. Vantage theory. Language and cognitive construal of the world, ed. by Taylor, John R. and MacLaury, Robert E., 231–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacLaury, Robert E. 1997. Color and cognition in Mesoamerica. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Miller, George, and Johnson-Laird, Philip. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Sabine, and Widlok, Thomas. 1996. Rethinking some universais of spatial language using controlled comparison. The construal of space in language and thought, ed. by Pütz, Martin and Dirven, René, 345–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
NuYTS, Jan, and Pederson, Eric (eds.) 1997. Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, Eric. 1993. Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. Spatial information theory, ed. by Frank, Andrew U. and Campari, Irene, 294–311. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pederson, Eric. 1995. Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and habitual language use. Cognitive Linguistics 6. 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rock, Irvin. 1990. The frame of reference. The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology, ed. by Rock, Irvin, 243–68. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rock, Irvin. 1992. Comments on Asch and Witkin’s ‘Studies in space orientation 2’. Journal of Experimental Psychology 121. 404–6.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek, and Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6. 89–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1986. Kilivila: The language of the Trobriand islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1994a. Ein Vorschlag, wie man standardisiert Daten zum Thema ‘Sprache, Kognition und Konzepte des Raumes’ in verschiedenen Kulturen erheben kann. Linguistische Berichte 154. 413–29.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1994b. Spatial reference in Kilivila: The Tinkertoy matching games—A case study. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 25. 55–93.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1996. Classificatory particles in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1997. Introduction to Referring to space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, ed. by Senft, Gunter, 1–38. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Danl. 1991. Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics 1. 7–25.Google Scholar
Slobin, Danl. 1996. From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In Gumperz & Levinson, 70–96.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. Universais of human language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, et al., 625–49. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, ed. by Pick, Herbert and Acredolo, Linda, 225–82. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1997. Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In Nuyts & Pederson, 162–89.Google Scholar
Verhaeghe, Arlette, and Kolinsky, Régine. 1991. Discriminaçāo entre figuras orientadas em espelho em funçāo do modo de apresentaçāo em adultos escolarizados e adultos iletrados. Actas das I Jomadas de Estudo dos Processos Cognitivos, 51–67. Lisbon: Sociedade Portuguesa de Psicologia.Google Scholar
Wassmann, Jürg, and Dasen, P. R.. 1998. Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence for moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen. 1986. Learning how to become an interlocutor: The verbal negotiation of common frames of reference and actions in dyads of 7-14 year old children. Children’s worlds and children’s language, ed. by Cook-Gumperz, Jenny, Corsaro, William A., and Streeck, Juergen, 377–404. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WiDLOK, Thomas. 1997. Orientation in the wild: The shared cognition of Hai||om Bush- people. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3. 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1988. Switch-reference in Mpamtwe Arremte (Aranda): Form, function, and problems of identity. Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, ed. by Austin, P., 141–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1989. Mpamtwe Arremte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1997. The verbalization of motion events in Arremte (Central Australia). The proceedings of the 28th annual Child Language Research Forum, ed. by Clark, Eve V., 295–308. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V., and Hill, Deborah. 1995. When GO means COME: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6. 209–59.Google Scholar