The intrinsic frame of reference and the Dhivehi ‘FIBO’ system

Jonathon Lum

doi:10.1515/cog-2020-0103

Article

The intrinsic frame of reference and the Dhivehi ‘FIBO’ system

Jonathon Lum

Published/Copyright: November 4, 2021

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Cognitive Linguistics Volume 32 Issue 4

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.

Keywords: Dhivehi; frames of reference; intrinsic frame of reference; spatial cognition; spatial language

Corresponding author: Jonathon Lum, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, E-mail: jonathon.lum@unimelb.edu.au

Funding source: Australian Research Council

Award Identifier / Grant number: DP120102701

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful for the participation and hospitality of my many consultants in the Maldives, especially in Laamu Atoll, and for the support of the Laamu Atoll Council and the Dhivehi Language Academy. Special thanks must go to Ann Senghas for sharing the ‘Man and Tree’ images and to Jonathan Schlossberg who designed some of the spatial language elicitation tasks with me. I also wish to thank Alice Gaby, Bill Palmer, Joe Blythe, John Mansfield, Rebecca Defina, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable input. All errors are my own.

Research funding: This research was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP120102701).

References

Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000. Language and space in Tonga: “The front of the house is where the chief sits!”. Anthropological Linguistics 42(4). 499–544.Search in Google Scholar

Bennardo, Giovanni. 2009. Language, space and social relationships: A foundational cultural model in Polynesia (Language, Culture and Cognition 9). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581458Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Yucatec: Referential promiscuity and task-specificity. Language Sciences 33(6). 892–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.009.Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Carolyn O’Meara. 2012. Vectors and frames of reference: Evidence from Seri and Yucatec. In Luna Filipović & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture, and cognition. (Human Cognitive Processing 37), 217–249. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/hcp.37.16bohSearch in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Randi Tucker. 2013. Space in semantic typology: Object-centered geometries. In Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive perspectives (Linguae & Litterae 24), 637–666. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110312027.637Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope. 2006. A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal. In Stephen C. Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 230–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753.008Search in Google Scholar

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

Danziger, Eve. 2010. Deixis, gesture, and cognition in spatial Frame of Reference typology. Studies in Language 34(1). 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.1.16dan.Search in Google Scholar

Dasen, Pierre R. & Ramesh Chandra Mishra. 2010. Development of geocentric spatial Language and cognition: An eco-cultural perspective. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511761058Search in Google Scholar

Edmonds-Wathen, Cris. 2011. What comes before? Understanding spatial reference in Iwaidja. In Mamokgethi Setati, T. Nkambule & Leila Goosen (eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 21 Conference: Mathematics and language diversity, 89–97. São Paolo, Brazil: ICMI. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-108402.Search in Google Scholar

Edmonds-Wathen, Cris. 2012. Frame of reference in Iwaidja: Towards a culturally responsive early years mathematics program. Melbourne: RMIT University PhD thesis. https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160446/Edmonds_Wathen.pdf (accessed 25 November 2016).Search in Google Scholar

François, Alexandre. 2004. Reconstructing the geocentric system of Proto-Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics 43(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2004.0009.Search in Google Scholar

Gaby, Alice, Joe Blythe & Hywel Stoakes. 2016. Absolute spatial cognition without absolute spatial language. Conference presentation presented at the Geographic grounding: Place, direction and landscape in the grammars of the world, University of Copenhagen.Search in Google Scholar

Heegård, Jan & Henrik Liljegren. 2018. Geomorphic coding in Palula and Kalasha. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 50(2). 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2018.1432210.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Clifford. 1982. Up/down, front/back, left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. In Jürgen Weissenborn & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and de-monstration, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pb.iii.2-3.02hilSearch in Google Scholar

Johnston, Judith R. & Dan Slobin. 1979. The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language 6. 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/s030500090000252x.Search in Google Scholar

Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

de Léon, Lourdes. 1993. Shape, geometry and location: The case of Tzotzil body part terms. In Katharine Beals (ed.), CLS 29: Papers from the parasession on conceptual representations, 77–90. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1994. Vision, shape and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. In John B. Haviland & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Space in Mayan languages, Special issue of Linguistics, vol. 32, 791–855.10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.791Search in Google Scholar

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

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

Levinson, Stephen C., Penelope Brown, Eve Danziger, Lourdes De Léon, John B. Haviland, Eric Pederson & Gunter Senft. 1992. Man and tree & space games. In Stephen C. Levinson (ed.), Space stimuli Kit 1.2: November 1992, 7–14. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel Haun & Björn H. Rasch. 2002. Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84(2). 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00045-8.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753Search in Google Scholar

Li, Peggy, Linda Abarbanell, Lila Gleitman & Papafragou Anna. 2011. Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition 120. 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.012.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Peggy & Lila Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3). 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00009-4.Search in Google Scholar

Lum, Jonathon. 2018. Frames of spatial reference in Dhivehi language and cognition. Melbourne: Monash University PhD thesis.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(3). 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

Nikitina, Tatiana. 2018. Frames of reference in discourse: Spatial descriptions in Bashkir (Turkic). Cognitive Linguistics 29(3). 495–544. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0081.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in language: Absolute frame of reference and the topographic correspondence hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural and natural factors (Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts), 179–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.6.08palSearch in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill, Alice Gaby, Jonathon Lum & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2018. Socioculturally mediated responses to environment shaping universals and diversity in spatial language. In Paolo Fogliaroni, Andrea Ballatore & Elisio Clementini (eds.), Proceedings of Workshops and Posters at the 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017). COSIT 2017 (Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography), 195–205. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-63946-8_35Search 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

Pederson, Eric. 1993. Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. In Andrew U. Frank & Irene Campari (eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS, 294–311. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/3-540-57207-4_20Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric. 1995. Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and habitual language use. Cognitive Linguistics 6(1). 33–62.https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.33.Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric. 2006. Spatial language in Tamil. In Stephen C. Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 400–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753.012Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen C. Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Gunter Senft. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74(3). 557–589. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0074.Search in Google Scholar

Senft, Gunter. 2001. Frames of spatial reference in Kilivila. Studies in Language 25(3). 521–555. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.3.05sen.Search in Google Scholar

Senghas, Ann. 2000. Differences between first- and second-cohort Nicaraguan signers in communicating location and orientation. Poster presented at the Seventh International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR7), July 2000. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

Shinohara, Kazuko & Yoshihiro Matsunaka. 2004. Spatial cognition and linguistic expression: Empirical research on frames of reference in Japanese. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2. 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.09shi.Search in Google Scholar

Tanz, Christine. 1980. Studies in the acquisition of deictic terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Terrill, Angela & Niclas Burenhult. 2008. Orientation as a strategy in spatial reference. Studies in Language 32(1). 93–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.1.05ter.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-08-31

Accepted: 2021-10-19

Published Online: 2021-11-04

Published in Print: 2021-11-25

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0103

Keywords for this article

Dhivehi; frames of reference; intrinsic frame of reference; spatial cognition; spatial language