1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Volume 30, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates how integrated egocentric and environmental reference frames influence direction determination and cardinal direction judgments in L1 speakers of Mongolian and Mandarin. The results show that in direction determination, Mandarin participants’ integrated frame of reference is “front-north, back-south, left-west, and right-east.” By contrast, Mongolian participants use two modes of integrated spatial representation: “front-south, back-north, left-east, and right-west” and “front-north, back-south, left-west, and right-east”. This behavior points to influences from the participants’ dominant and non-dominant languages. Mongolian and Mandarin participants showed a north advantage in cardinal direction judgment tasks with a “front-north” response configuration. Whereas Mandarin participants consistently showed a north advantage effect, Mongolian participants showed a south advantage effect in the “front-south” configuration. This suggests that in addition to the long-recognized difference in north-south/east-west axis preference, a north-south axis specification where south was the normative direction instead of north can result from cultural and linguistic influence. The results corroborate the idea that language affects the integration of spatial reference frames, lending support to linguistic relativism.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
2023-12-12
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abarbanell, Linda
    2007 Linguistic flexibility in frame of reference use among adult Tseltal (Mayan) speakers. Paper presented at the81st Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim, CA, 4–7 January 2007.
  2. Bateer, Cao D.
    2014 Mongolian spatial topological relations. Minority Language of China31. 55–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bochynskaa, Agata, Mila Vulchanovaa, Valentin Vulchanova & Barbara Landauc
    2000 Spatial language difficulties reflect the structure of intact spatial representation: Evidence from high-functioning autism. Cognitive Psychology1161. e101249. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101249
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101249 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Stephen C. Levinson
    2011 Framing whorf: A response to Li et al. (2011). Unpublished manuscript. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo. Available online athttps://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/575/S11/Bohnemeyer_Levinson_ms.pdf (accessed31–10–2023).
  5. Boroditsky, Lera
    2001 Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology43(1). 1–22. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1993a Linguistic and nonlinguistic coding of spatial arrays: Explorations in Mayan cognition. Nijmegen Working Papers of the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group241. 1–60. Available online athttps://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0011-31DD-E (accessed31–10–2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 1993b ‘Uphill’ and ‘Downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology31. 46–74. 10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.46
     https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.46 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunyé, Tad T., Caroline R. Mahoney, Aaron L. Gardony & Holly A. Taylor
    2010 North is up(hill): Route planning heuristics in real-world environments. Memory & Cognition38(6). 700–712. 10.3758/MC.38.6.700
     https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.6.700 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dennett, Daniel
    1991 Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Brown.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Emreözgen, Emre & Lan R. L. Davies
    2002 Acquisition of categorical color perception: A perceptual learning approach to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General131(4). 477–493. 10.1037/0096‑3445.131.4.477
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.4.477 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fodor, Jerry A.
    1975 The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Franklin, Nancy & Barbara Tversky
    1990 Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General119(1). 63–76. 10.1037/0096‑3445.119.1.63
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.119.1.63 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gentner, Dedre, Asli Özyürek, Ozge Gürcanli & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2013 Spatial language facilitates spatial cognition: evidence from children who lack language input. Cognition1271. 318–330. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gentner, Dedre & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    (eds.) 2003 Language in mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4117.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4117.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gernsbacher, Morton A. & Micheal P. Kaschak
    2003 Neuroimaging studies of language production and comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology54(1). 91–114. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145128
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145128 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gleitman, Lila & Anna Papafragou
    2005 Language and thought. InKeith J. Holyoak & Robert G. Morrison (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, 633–661. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gordon, Peter
    2004 Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science306(5695). 496–499. 10.1126/science.1094492
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094492 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gravetter, Frederick J. & Larry B. Wallnau
    2016 Statistics for the behavioral sciences, 10th edn.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gugerty, Leo & Johnell Brooks
    2001 Seeing where you are heading: Integrating environmental and egocentric reference frames in cardinal direction judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied7(3). 251–266. 10.1037/1076‑898X.7.3.251
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.251 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2004 Reference-frame misalignment and cardinal direction judgments: Group differences and strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied10(2). 75–88. 10.1037/1076‑898X.10.2.75
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.10.2.75 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gumperz, John J. & Stephen C. Levinson
    1996 Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Haun, Daniel B. M., Christian J. Rapold, Gabriele Janzen & Stephen C. Levinson
    2011 Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition1191. 70–80. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haun, Daniel B. M., Christian J. Rapold, Josep Call, Gabriele Janzen & Stephen C. Levinson
    2006 Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in hominid spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103(46). 17568–17573. 10.1073/pnas.0607999103
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607999103 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haun, Daniel B. M. & Christian J. Rapold
    2009 Variation in memory for body movements across cultures. Current Biology19(23). 1068–1069. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.041
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.041 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyde, Daniel C., Nathan Winkler-Rhoades, Sang-Ah Lee, Veronique Izard, Kevin A. Shapiro & Elizabeth S. Spelke
    2011 Spatial and numerical abilities without a complete natural language. Neuropsychologia491. 924–936. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2003 Space in language and cognition: Explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1998 Studying spatial conceptualization across cultures: Anthropology and cognitive science. Ethos26(1). 7–24. 10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins
    (eds.) 2006 Grammars of space. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486753
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486753 [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Haun & Björn H. Rasch
    2002 Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition84(2). 155–188. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00045‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00045-8 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1996 Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. InPaul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 109–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Peggy & Lila Gleitman
    2002 Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition83(3). 265–294. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00009‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00009-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, Peggy, Linda Abarbanell & Anna Papafragou
    2005 Spatial Reasoning Skills in Tenejapan Mayans. Paper presented at the27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, 21–23 July 2005. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.012
  33. Li, Peggy & Linda Abarbanell
    2019 Alternative spin on phylogenetically inherited spatial reference frames. Cognition1911. e103983. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.020 [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu, Lihong, Jijia Zhang & Huiping Wang
    2005 The effect of spatial language habits on people’s spatial cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica37(4). 469–475. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2005/V37/I04/469
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Logan, Gordon D. & Daniel Sadler
    1996 A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations: Language, speech, and communication. InStephen C. Levinson (ed.), Explorations in linguistic diversity, 375–395. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lucy, John
    1992 Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620843
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620843 [Google Scholar]
  37. Majid, Asifa, Melissa Bowerman, Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Haun & Stephen C. Levinson
    2004 Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences8(3). 108–114. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marghetis, Tyler, Melanie McComsey & Kensy Cooperrider
    2020 Space in hand and mind: Gesture and spatial frames of reference in bilingual Mexico. Cognitive Science44(12). e12920. 10.1111/cogs.12920
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12920 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mishra, Ramesh C. & Pierre R. Dasen
    2005 Spatial language and cognitive development in India: An urban/rural comparison. InWolfgang Friedlmeier, Pradeep Chakkarath & Beate Schwarz (eds.), Culture and human development: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences, 153–179. Hove: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McNamara, Timothy P., Björn Rump & Steffen Werner
    2003 Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review10(3). 589–595. 10.3758/BF03196519
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196519 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mou, Weimin, Kan Zhang & Timothy P. McNamara
    2004 Frames of reference in spatial memories acquired from language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition301. 171–180. 10.1037/0278‑7393.30.1.171
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.171 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pica, Pierre, Cathy Lemer, Véronique Izard & Stanislas Dehaene
    2004 Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigenous group. Science306(5695). 499–503. 10.1126/science.1102085
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102085 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pinker, Steven
    1994 The language instinct. New York, NY: Morrow. 10.1037/e412952005‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1037/e412952005-009 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Gunter Senft
    1998 Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language74(3). 557–589. 10.1353/lan.1998.0074
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0074 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pyers, Jennie, Anna Shusterman, Ann Senghas, Elizabeth S. Spelke & Karen Emmorey
    2010 Evidence from an emerging sign language reveals that language supports spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America107(27). 12116–12120. 10.1073/pnas.0914044107
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914044107 [Google Scholar]
  46. Roberson, Debi, Ian R. L. Davies & Jules Davidoff
    2000 Colour categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology General1291. 369–398. 10.1037/0096‑3445.129.3.369
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.369 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sapir, Edward
    1921 Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York, NY: Harcourt.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Shapero, Joshua A.
    2017 Does environmental experience spatial cognition? Frames of reference among Ancash Quechua speakers (Peru). Cognitive Science41(5). 1274–1298. 10.1111/cogs.12458
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12458 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shusterman, Anna & Peggy Li
    2016 A framework for work on frames of reference. InDavid Barner & Andrew S. Baron (eds.), Core knowledge and conceptual change, 191–208. New York, NY: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467630.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467630.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tian, Feng & Yurong Jin
    2009 Cultural connotation of Mongolian locational words. Journal of Inner Mongolia national university (Social Sciences edition)61. 37–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Vygotsky, Lev
    1962 Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.1037/11193‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wassmann, Jurg & Pierre R. Dasen
    1998 Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence for moderate linguistic relativity. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute4(1). 689–711. 10.2307/3034828
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3034828 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wickens, Christopher D., Chia-Chin Liang & Tyler Prevett
    1996 Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology6(3). 241–271. 10.1207/s15327108ijap0603_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0603_3 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wickens, Christopher D. & Justin G. Hollands
    2000 Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd edn. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Whorf, Benjamin L.
    1956 Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhang, Kan, Weimin Mou & Sumei Guo
    2000 Experiment proof of two-stage model in searching imagined space. Acta Psychologica Sinica32(1). 40–44. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2000/V32/I01/40
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang, Jijia & Lihong Liu
    2007 More on the effects of habit spatial terms on spatial cognition. Journal of Psychological Science21. 359–361. CitetononCRdoi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671‑6981.2007.02.026
     https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2007.02.026 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhou, Ronggang & Kan Zhang
    2004 Visuospatial relations judgment based on clue. Acta Psychologica Sinica36(2). 127–132. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2004/V36/I02/127
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 2005 The cardinal direction judgments in integrating environmental and egocentric reference frames. Acta Psychologica Sinica37(3). 298–307. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2005/V37/I03/298
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 2008 How information presentation affect absolute direction judgments based on spatial reference frames. Acta Psychologica Sinica40(11). 1137–1148. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2008/V40/I11/1137
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
Loading
Cardinal direction judgment based on the integration of spatial reference frames in different languages
Functions of Language 30, 320 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cardinal direction judgments; egocentric frame of reference; environmental frame of reference; language

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error