Home The influence of language, culture, and environment on the use of spatial referencing in a multilingual context: Taiwan as a test case
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The influence of language, culture, and environment on the use of spatial referencing in a multilingual context: Taiwan as a test case

  • Yen-Ting Lin ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: January 20, 2022

Abstract

This study examines the Sociotopographic Model (Palmer, Bill, Jonathon Lum, Jonathan Schlossberg & Alice Gaby. 2017. How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography. Linguistic Typology 21(3). 457–491. DOI:10.1515/lingty-2017-0011) by exploring the use of spatial frames of reference in two genealogically related languages with rather distinct spatial features in a multilingual context. Taiwanese Min Nan (TMN) and Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese (MC), exhibit distinct features in spatial reference in small-scale space, including a geocentric preference among TMN speakers for using cardinal directions or external landmarks and a relative preference among MC speakers for projecting the viewer’s perspective onto the object. The study extended the research design of Bohnemeyer and his colleagues (Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine T. Donelson, Randi Tucker, Elena Benedicto, Alejandra Capistrán Garza, Alyson Eggleston, Néstor Hernández Green, María Hernández Gómez, Samuel Herrera Castro, Carolyn K. O’Meara, Enrique Palancar, Gabriela Pérez Báez, Gilles Polian & Rodrigo Romero Méndez. 2014. The cultural transmission of spatial cognition: Evidence from a large-scale study. In Paul Bello, Marcello Guarini, Marjorie McShane & Brian Scassellati (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 212–217. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society) to the scope of bilingualism in order to explore how language, culture, and environment affect the use of spatial reference in bilinguals as compared to monolinguals. The research method comprised a discourse and a recall memory study. Contrary to the alignment between discourse and recall memory found in monolinguals, bilinguals displayed mixed patterns. Regression analyses indicated that, in addition to language, effects of environment emerged: topography was positively correlated with geocentric use, supporting the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis (Palmer, Bill, Alice Gaby, Jonathon Lum & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2016. Topography and frame of reference in the threatened ecological niche of the atoll. Paper presented at “Geographic grounding: Place, direction and landscape in the grammars of the world”, University of Copenhagen, May 2016). A strong education effect had an impact on geocentric use in both studies, suggesting the possibility of the cultural mediation between language and environment.


Corresponding author: Yen-Ting Lin, Research Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, E-mail:

Funding source: National Science Foundation

Award Identifier / Grant number: BSC-1053123

Award Identifier / Grant number: BSC-1551925

Funding source: Research Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Award Identifier / Grant number: MOST 110-2811-H-002-554

Award Identifier / Grant number: MOST 110-2811-H-002-543

  1. Research funding: This work was supported by the following grants: National Science Foundation grants BSC-1053123 “Spatial Language and Cognition Beyond Mesoamerica”, BSC-1551925 Doctoral Dissertation Research: “Spatial Language and Cognition in Bilingual Minds” (PI J. Bohnemeyer), and MOST 110-2811-H-002-543, MOST 110-2811-H-002-554 Research Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

References

Adamou, Evangelia & Xingjia Rachel Shen. 2017. Beyond language shift: Spatial cognition among the Ixcatecs in Mexico. Journal of Cognition and Culture 17(1–2). 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342193.Search in Google Scholar

Beller, Sieghard, Karen Brattebø, Kristina Lavik, Rakel Reigstad & Andrea Bender. 2015. Culture or language: What drives effects of grammatical gender? Cognitive Linguistics 26(2). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0021.Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Ali Alshehri, Joe Blythe, Letizia Cerqueglini, Eva Danziger, Katharine Donelson, T., Alyson Eggleston, Alice Gaby, Yen-Ting Lin, Jonathan Lum, Randi Moore, E., Tatiana Nikitina & Hywel, Stoakes. 2021. Reference frames in language and cognition: Cross-population mismatches. Linguistics Vanguard 8(s1). 175–189.10.1515/lingvan-2021-0091Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine T. Donelson, Randi E. Moore, Elena Benedicto, Alyson Eggleston, Carolyn K. O’Meara, Gabriela Pérez Báez, Enrique Palancar, Gilles Polian & Rodrigo Romero Méndez. 2015. The contact diffusion of linguistic practices. Language Dynamics and Change 5(2). 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00502002.Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine T. Donelson, Randi Tucker, Elena Benedicto, Alejandra Capistrán Garza, Alyson Eggleston, Néstor Hernández Green, María Hernández Gómez, Samuel Herrera Castro, Carolyn K. O’Meara, Enrique Palancar, Gabriela Pérez Báez, Gilles Polian & Rodrigo Romero Méndez. 2014. The cultural transmission of spatial cognition: Evidence from a large-scale study. In Paul Bello, Marcello Guarini, Marjorie McShane & Brian Scassellati (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 212–217. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera. 2011. How language shapes thought. Scientific American 304. 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 2000. Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. In Larry Nucci, Geoffrey Saxe & Elliot Turiel (eds.), Culture, thought, and development, 167–197. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Cerqueglin, Letizia. 2021. Cross-generational differences in linguistic and cognitive spatial frames of reference in Negev Arabic. Linguistics Vanguard 8(s1). 113–128.10.1515/lingvan-2020-0006Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary. 2006. From Eurocentrism to Sinocentrism: The case of disposal constructions in Sinitic languages. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 441–486. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197693.441Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Weirong. 2011. The Min Nan dialect of Hui’an: Morphosyntax and grammaticalization. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Carlson-Radvansky, Laura A. & David E. Irwin. 1993. Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition 46(3). 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90011-j.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22. 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7.Search in Google Scholar

Danziger, Eve & Eric Pederson. 1998. Through the looking glass: Literacy, writing systems and mirror image discrimination. Written Language and Literacy 1(2). 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.1.2.02dan.Search in Google Scholar

Dasen, Pierre R., Ramesh C. Mishra & Shanta Niraula. 2004. The influence of schooling on cognitive development: Spatial language, encoding and concept development in India and Nepal. In Bernadette N. Setiadi, Augustinus Supratiknya, Walter J. Lonner & Ype H. Poortinga (eds.), Ongoing themes in psychology and culture: Selected papers from the Sixteenth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, 223–275. Yogjakarta: Kasinius.10.4087/QSVT1106Search in Google Scholar

Davidoff, Jules, Ian R. L. Davies & Debi Roberson. 1999. Is colour categorisation universal? New evidence from a stone-age culture. Nature 398. 203–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/18335.Search in Google Scholar

de León, Lourdes. 1994. Exploration in the acquisition of geocentric location by Tzotzil children. Linguistics 32. 857–884.10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.857Search in Google Scholar

Donelson, Katharine T. 2018. On space in conversation: Coordinating perspectives in spatial reference. Buffalo: University at Buffalo PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, Jennifer Hill & Masanao Yajima. 2012. Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 5. 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.618213.Search in Google Scholar

Haun, Daniel B. M., Christian Rapold, Gabriele Janzen & Stephen C. Levinson. 2011. Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition 119. 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009.Search in Google Scholar

Haviland, John. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr. In Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 1, 27–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.hal1.06havSearch in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.Search in Google Scholar

Kita, Sotaro. 2006. A grammar of space in Japanese. In Stephen C. Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 437–474. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753.013Search in Google Scholar

LaPolla, Randy J. 2001. The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change, 225–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198299813.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Le Guen, Olivier. 2011. Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science 35. 905–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01183.x.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 109–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613609Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Haun & Björn H. Rasch. 2002. Returning the tables. Cognition 84. 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00045-8.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. & Bernadette Schmitt. 1993. Animals in a Row. In Cognition and space kit version 1.0, 65–69. Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Wei. 2000. The bilingualism reader. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Peggy & Lila Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83. 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00009-4.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Yen-Ting. 2015. Evidence of language contact: Data from SOURCE prepositional phrases in Taiwanese Southern Min. Poster presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Portland, Oregon, USA, 8–11 January.10.3765/exabs.v0i0.3010Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Yen-Ting. 2017. Spatial language and cognition in bilingual minds: Taiwan as a test case. University at Buffalo-SUNY Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Ruey‐Ying. 2012. Language policy and group identification in Taiwan. Mind, Brain, and Education 6(2). 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228x.2012.01143.x.Search in Google Scholar

MacLaury, Robert E. 1989. Zapotec body-part locatives: Prototypes and metaphoric extensions. International Journal of American Linguistics 55(2). 119–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/466110.Search in Google Scholar

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 Sciences 8. 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

Meakins, Felicity, Caroline Jones & Cassandra Algy. 2015. Bilingualism, language shift and the corresponding expansion of spatial cognitive systems. Language Sciences 54. 1–13.10.1016/j.langsci.2015.06.002Search in Google Scholar

Mishra, Ramesh C. & Pierre R. Dasen. 2014. Development of spatial language and cognition in Hindi- and Sanskrit-medium schools. Psychological Studies 58(4). 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-013-0232-8.Search in Google Scholar

Mishra, Ramesh C., Pierre R. Dasen & Shanta Niraula. 2003. Ecology, language, and performance on spatial cognitive tasks. International Journal of Psychology 38. 366–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000187.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, Randi, Katharine Donelson, Alyson Eggleston & Juergen Bohnemeyer. 2015. Semantic typology: New approaches to crosslinguistic variation in language and cognition. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1). 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-1004.Search in Google Scholar

O’Meara, Carolyn & Gabriela Pérez Báez. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. Language Sciences 33(6). 837–852.10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.013Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2002. Absolute spatial reference and the grammaticalisation of perceptually salient phenomena. In Giovanni Bennardo (ed.), Representing space in Oceania: Culture in language and mind (Pacific Linguistics 523), 107–133. Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in language: Absolute frame of reference and the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy LaPolla (eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors, 179–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.6.08palSearch in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill, Jonathon Lum, Jonathan Schlossberg & Alice Gaby. 2017. How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography. Linguistic Typology 21(3). 457–491. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0011.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill, Alice Gaby, Jonathon Lum & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2018. Diversity in spatial language within communities: The interplay of culture, language and landscape in representations of space. In Stephan Winter, Amy Griffin & Monika Sester (eds.), 10th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2018) (Liebniz International Proceedings in Informatics 114), 53:2–53:8. Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl.Search in Google Scholar

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2011. Thinking and speaking in two languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847693389Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David P. Wilkins, Stephen C. Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Senft Gunter. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74. 557–589. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0074.Search in Google Scholar

Poulton, Thomas & Alice Gaby. 2021. Egocentrism in English speaker’s use of relative and cardinal direction terms, Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Vajpayee, Aparna, Pierre R. Dasen & Ramesh C. Mishra. 2008. Spatial encoding: A comparison of Sanskrit- and Hindi-medium schools. In Janak Pandey & Narayanan Srinivasa (eds.), Advances in cognitive science, 255–265. New Delhi: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Van Staden, Miriam, Melissa Bowerman & Mariet Verhelst. 2006. Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In Stephen C. Levinson & David P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753.014Search in Google Scholar

Wassmann, Jurg & Pierre R. Dasen. 1998. Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence of moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(4). 689–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034828.Search in Google Scholar

Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna & Herbert H. Clark. 1992. Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Cognition 31. 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(92)90010-u.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0110).


Received: 2021-08-16
Accepted: 2021-08-31
Published Online: 2022-01-20

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 21.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0110/pdf
Scroll to top button