Home From the field into the lab: causal approaches to the evolution of spatial language
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

From the field into the lab: causal approaches to the evolution of spatial language

  • Jonas Nölle ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Michael Spranger ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: January 20, 2022
Linguistics Vanguard
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 8 Issue s1

Abstract

Striking variation exists in preferences for specific spatial linguistic strategies among different speech communities. Increasing evidence now suggests that this might not simply be a result of neutral drift, but rather a form of linguistic adaptation to the local social, cultural, or physical environment. Recent studies indicate that different factors like topography, subsistence style, and bilingualism successfully predict the choice of spatial frames of reference (FoR) on linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. However, the exact causal relationships between these variables and the cultural evolutionary mechanisms behind the selection of one FoR strategy over another are still not fully understood. In this paper, we argue that to arrive at a more mechanistic and causal understanding of the cultural evolution of spatial language, observations from descriptive fieldwork should be combined with experimental and computational methods. In the framework we present, causal relationships between linguistic and non-linguistic variables (such as FoR choice and topography) can be isolated and systematically tested in order to shed light on how sociotopographic factors motivate the variation in spatial language we observe cross-linguistically. We discuss experimental results from behavioral studies and computer simulations that illustrate how this approach can deliver empirical findings that go beyond simple correlations.

Keywords: causality; frames of reference; language evolution; linguistic adaptation; spatial language
Corresponding author: Jonas Nölle, School of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from discussions at the specialist meeting “Universals and Variation in Spatial Referencing across Cultures and Languages” hosted at the Center for Spatial Studies at UC Santa Barbara in December 2016. In particular, we wish to thank Bill Palmer, Jürgen Bohnemeyer, Niclas Burenhult, Terry Regier, and Steve Levinson for insightful discussions. We also wish to thank Alice Gaby, Stefan Hartmann, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this article.

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

Ameka, Felix K. & James Essegbey. 2006. Elements of the grammar of space in Ewe. In Stephen C. Levinson & David P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 359–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753.011Search in Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x.Search in Google Scholar

Bentz, Christian & Bodo Winter. 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030105.Search in Google Scholar

Blasi, Damián E., Steven Moran, Scott R. Moisik, Paul Widmer, Dan Dediu & Balthasar Bickel. 2019. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363(6432). eaav3218. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav3218.Search in Google Scholar

Blasi, Damián E. & Seán G. Roberts. 2017. Beyond binary dependencies in language structure. In Nick J. Enfield (ed.), Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems, 117–128. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bohil, Corey J., Bradly Alicea & Frank A. Biocca. 2011. Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12(12). 752–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3122.Search 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. 2016. The interplay of language, culture, and environment in spatial reference. Paper presented at the conference Universals and variation in spatial referencing across cultures and languages. Santa Barbara: Center for Spatial Studies.Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine Donelson, Yen-Ting Lin & Randi Moore. 2018. The biological and cultural evolution of spatial cognition: Evidence from semantic typology. In Thomas Hünefeldt & Marta Olivetti Belardinelli (eds.), Spatial Cognition in a multimedia and intercultural world. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spatial Cognition (ICSC 2018). Rome: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine T. Donelson, Randi E. Moore, Elena Benedicto, Alyson Eggleston, Carolyn K. O’Meara, Gabriela Pérez Báez, Alejandra Capistrán Garza, Néstor Hernández Green & María de Jesús Selene Hernández Gómez. 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

Brown, Angela M. & Delwin T. Lindsey. 2004. Color and language: Worldwide distribution of Daltonism and distinct words for “blue”. Visual Neuroscience 21(3). 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523804213098.Search in Google Scholar

Calderón, Eréndira, Stefano De Pascale & Evangelia Adamou. 2019. How to speak “geocentric” in an “egocentric” language: A multimodal study among Ngigua-Spanish bilinguals and Spanish monolinguals in a rural community of Mexico. Language Sciences 74. 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.04.001.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, M. Keith. 2013. The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets. The American Economic Review 103(2). 690–731. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.2.690.Search in Google Scholar

Coupé, Christophe, Yoon Oh, Dan Dediu & François Pellegrino. 2019. Different languages, similar encoding efficiency: Comparable information rates across the human communicative niche. Science Advances 5(9). eaaw2594. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594.Search in Google Scholar

Danziger, Eve & Eric Pederson. 1998. Through the looking glass: Literacy, writing systems and mirror-image discrimination. Written Language & Literacy 1(2). 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.1.2.02dan.Search in Google Scholar

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

Dediu, Dan, Michael Cysouw, Stephen C. Levinson, Andrea Baronchelli, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nicholas Evans, Simon Garrod, Russell D. Gray, Anne Kandler & Elena Lieven. 2013. Cultural evolution of language. In Peter J. Richerson & Morten H. Christiansen (eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion, 303–332. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019750.003.0016Search in Google Scholar

Dediu, Dan, Rick Janssen & Scott R. Moisik. 2017. Language is not isolated from its wider environment: Vocal tract influences on the evolution of speech and language. Language & Communication 54. 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.10.002.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2014. Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Linguistics and Language Compass 8(3). 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12066.Search in Google Scholar

Donelson, Katharine. 2018. On space in conversation: Coordinating perspectives in spatial reference. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Eggleston, Alyson, Elena Benedicto & Mayangna Yulbarangyang Balna. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Sumu-Mayangna. Language Sciences 33(6). 1047–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.007.Search in Google Scholar

Everett, Caleb, Damián E. Blasi & Seán G. Roberts. 2015. Climate, vocal folds, and tonal languages: Connecting the physiological and geographic dots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(5). 1322–1327. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417413112.Search in Google Scholar

Feldmann, Horst. 2019. Do linguistic structures affect human capital? The case of pronoun drop: Linguistic structures and human capital. Kyklos 72(1). 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12190.Search in Google Scholar

Galantucci, Bruno, Simon Garrod & Gareth Roberts. 2012. Experimental semiotics. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(8). 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.351.Search in Google Scholar

Gallistel, Randy C. 2002. Conception, perception and the control of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(12). 504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02033-8.Search in Google Scholar

Garrod, Simon & Gwyneth Doherty. 1994. Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition 53(3). 181–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90048-5.Search in Google Scholar

Gould, Neda F., M. Kathleen Holmes, Bryan D. Fantie, David A. Luckenbaugh, Daniel S. Pine, Todd D. Gould, Neil Burgess, Husseini K. Manji & Carlos A. Zarate. 2007. Performance on a virtual reality spatial memory navigation task in depressed patients. American Journal of Psychiatry 4. 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.3.516.Search in Google Scholar

Haun, Daniel B. M. & Christian J. Rapold. 2009. Variation in memory for body movements across cultures. Current Biology 19(23). R1068–R1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.041.Search in Google Scholar

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 Sciences 103(46). 17568–17573. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607999103.Search in Google Scholar

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. Cognition 119(1). 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009.Search in Google Scholar

Haviland, John B. 1993. Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(1). 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Heyselaar, Evelien, Peter Hagoort & Katrien Segaert. 2017. In dialogue with an avatar, language behavior is identical to dialogue with a human partner. Behavior Research Methods 49(1). 46–60. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0688-7.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Jaehyeon, Yongtae Kim & Jian Zhou. 2017. Languages and earnings management. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2941120 (accessed 6 August 2019).10.2139/ssrn.2941120Search in Google Scholar

Lawton, Carol A. 2001. Gender and regional differences in spatial referents used in direction giving. Sex Roles 44(5–6). 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010981616842.10.1023/A:1010981616842Search in Google Scholar

Le Guen, Olivier. 2011. Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science 35(5). 905–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01183.x.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 B. M. 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. & 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

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

Li, Peggy, Linda Abarbanell, Lila Gleitman & Anna Papafragou. 2011. Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition 120(1). 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

Lin, Yen-Ting. 2017. Spatial language and cognition in bilingual minds: Taiwan as a test case. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Lum, Jonathon & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2014. The Virtual Atoll Task: A spatial language elicitation tool. In Mark Harvey & Alexis Antonia (eds.), The 45th Australian Linguistic Society Conference Proceedings – 2014. Newcastle: NOVA Open Access Repository. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1307976.Search in Google Scholar

Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLOS ONE 5(1). e8559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559.Search in Google Scholar

Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2016. Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(9). 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.005.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

McElreath, Richard. 2020. Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan, 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.10.1201/9780429029608Search in Google Scholar

Mesoudi, Alex & Alex Thornton. 2018. What is cumulative cultural evolution? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285(1880). 20180712. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0712.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(6). 366–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000187.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, Randi. 2018. Spatial language and cognition in Isthmus Zapotec. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Naroll, Raoul. 1961. Two solutions to Galton’s problem. Philosophy of Science 28(1). 15–39. https://doi.org/10.1086/287778.Search in Google Scholar

Newcombe, Nora S. & Janellen Huttenlocher. 2000. Making space: The development of spatial representation and reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4395.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Nölle, Jonas. 2021. How language adapts to the environment: An evolutionary, experimental approach. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD thesis.10.31237/osf.io/bfuvrSearch in Google Scholar

Nölle, Jonas, Riccardo Fusaroli, Gregory J. Mills & Kristian Tylén. 2020a. Language as shaped by the environment: Linguistic construal in a collaborative spatial task. Palgrave Communications 6(1). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0404-9.Search in Google Scholar

Nölle, Jonas, Simon Kirby, Jennifer Culbertson & Kenny Smith. 2020b. Does environment shape spatial language? A virtual reality approach. In Andrea Ravignani, Chiara Barbieri, Mauricio Martins, Molly Flaherty, Yannick Jadoul, Ella Lattenkamp, Hannah Little, Katie Mudd & Tessa Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 13th international conference (Evolang XIII), 321–323. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar

O’Meara, Carolyn & Gabriela Pérez Báez. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. Language Sciences 33(6). 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.013.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, 177–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.6.08palSearch in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill, Alice Gaby, Jonathan Lum & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2018. Diversity in spatial language within communities: The interplay of culture, language and landscape in representations of space (short paper). In 10th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2018) 2018. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4230/lipics.giscience.2018.53.Search 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

Pearl, Judea. 2009. Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803161Search in Google Scholar

Pearl, Judea & Dana Mackenzie. 2018. The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. USA: Basic Books.Search 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/10.2307/417793.Search in Google Scholar

Peeters, David. 2019. Virtual reality: A game-changing method for the language sciences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26. 894–900. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01571-3.Search in Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 2007. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Polian, Gilles & Jürgen Bohnemeyer. 2011. Uniformity and variation in Tseltal reference frame use. Language Sciences 33(6). 868–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.010.Search in Google Scholar

Raviv, Limor, Antje Meyer & Shiri Lev-Ari. 2019. Larger communities create more systematic languages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286(1907) . 20191262. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1262.Search in Google Scholar

Regier, Terry, Alexandra Carstensen & Charles Kemp. 2016. Languages support efficient communication about the environment: Words for snow revisited. PLOS ONE 11(4). e0151138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151138.Search in Google Scholar

Richerson, Peter J. & Robert Boyd. 2008. Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Seán G. 2018. Robust, causal, and incremental approaches to investigating linguistic adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology 9. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00166.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Seán G., Anton Killin, Angarika Deb, Catherine Sheard, Simon J. Greenhill, Kaius Sinnemäki, José Segovia-Martín, Jonas Nölle, Aleksandrs Berdicevskis, Archie Humphreys-Balkwill, Hannah Little, Christopher Opie, Guillaume Jacques, Lindell Bromham, Peeter Tinits, Robert M. Ross, Sean Lee, Emily Gasser, Jasmine Calladine, Matthew Spike, Stephen F. Mann, Olena Shcherbakova, Ruth Singer, Shuya Zhang, Antonio Benítez-Burraco, Christian Kliesch, Ewan Thomas-Colquhoun, Hedvig Skirgård, Monica Tamariz, Monica Tamariz, Sam Passmore, Thomas Pellard & Fiona Jordan. 2020. CHIELD: The causal hypotheses in evolutionary linguistics database. Journal of Language Evolution 5(1). 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzaa001.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Seán G. & James Winters. 2013. Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PLOS ONE 8(8). e70902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070902.Search in Google Scholar

Scott-Phillips, Thomas C. & Simon Kirby. 2010. Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(9). 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.006.Search in Google Scholar

Shapero, Joshua A. 2017. Does environmental experience shape spatial cognition? Frames of reference among Ancash Quechua speakers (Peru). Cognitive Science 41(5). 1274–1298. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12458.Search in Google Scholar

Shusterman, Anna & Peggy Li. 2016. Frames of reference in spatial language acquisition. Cognitive Psychology 88. 115–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Spranger, Michael. 2011. Recruitment, selection and alignment of spatial language strategies. In Tom Lenaerts, Mario Giacobini, Hugues Bersini, Paul Bourgine, Marco Dorigo & René Doursat (eds.), Advances in artificial life, ECAL 2011: Proceedings of the eleventh European Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, 771–778. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Spranger, Michael. 2012a. The co-evolution of basic spatial terms and categories. In Luc Steels (ed.), Experiments in cultural language evolution, 111–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ais.3.07sprSearch in Google Scholar

Spranger, Michael. 2012b. Potential stages in the cultural evolution of spatial language. In Thomas C. Scott-Phillips, Mónica Tamariz, Erica A. Cartmill & James R. Hurford (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 9th conference (Evolang IX), 328–335. Kyoto: World Scientific.10.1142/9789814401500_0043Search in Google Scholar

Spranger, Michael. 2013. Evolving grounded spatial language strategies. KI – Künstliche Intelligenz 27(2). 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-013-0245-4.Search in Google Scholar

Spranger, Michael. 2016. The evolution of grounded spatial language. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_611695Search in Google Scholar

Spranger, Michael & Luc Steels. 2012. Synthetic modeling of cultural language evolution. In Luke McCrohon, Tomomi Fujimura, Kazuo Okanoya, Koji Fujita, Reiji Suzuki, Roger Martin & Noriaki Yusa (eds.), Five approaches to language evolution – Proceedings of the workshops of the 9th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (Evolang IX), 130–139. Kyoto: World Scientific.Search in Google Scholar

Tamariz, Monica. 2017. Experimental studies on the cultural evolution of language. Annual Review of Linguistics 3(1). 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033807.Search in Google Scholar

Tarr, Michael J. & William H. Warren. 2002. Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nature Neuroscience 5(11). 1089–1092. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn948.Search in Google Scholar

Tinits, Peeter, Jonas Nölle & Stefan Hartmann. 2017. Usage context influences the evolution of overspecification in iterated learning. Journal of Language Evolution 2(2). 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzx011.Search in Google Scholar

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

Winters, James, Simon Kirby & Kenny Smith. 2015. Languages adapt to their contextual niche. Language and Cognition 7(3). 415–449. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.35.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-02-02
Accepted: 2021-06-14
Published Online: 2022-01-20

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Diversity in representing space within and between language communities
  4. A quantitative approach to sociotopography in Austronesian languages
  5. Directionals, topography, and cultural construals of landscape in Lamaholot
  6. A socially anchored approach to spatial language in Kalaallisut
  7. River-based and egocentric spatial orientation in Yine
  8. Geocentric directional systems in Australia: a typology
  9. The irrelevance of scale and fixedness in landscape terms in two Australian languages
  10. Changes in spatial frames of reference use in Iwaidja in different intergenerational contexts
  11. Cross-generational differences in linguistic and cognitive spatial frames of reference in Negev Arabic
  12. Sociotopography meets Dialectology: the case of Aquilan
  13. Conflation of spatial reference frames in deaf community sign languages
  14. Linguistic spatial reference systems across domains: How people talk about space in sailing, dancing, and other specialist areas
  15. The influence of language, culture, and environment on the use of spatial referencing in a multilingual context: Taiwan as a test case
  16. Reference frames in language and cognition: cross-population mismatches
  17. From the field into the lab: causal approaches to the evolution of spatial language
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0007
Keywords for this article
causality; frames of reference; language evolution; linguistic adaptation; spatial language

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Diversity in representing space within and between language communities
  4. A quantitative approach to sociotopography in Austronesian languages
  5. Directionals, topography, and cultural construals of landscape in Lamaholot
  6. A socially anchored approach to spatial language in Kalaallisut
  7. River-based and egocentric spatial orientation in Yine
  8. Geocentric directional systems in Australia: a typology
  9. The irrelevance of scale and fixedness in landscape terms in two Australian languages
  10. Changes in spatial frames of reference use in Iwaidja in different intergenerational contexts
  11. Cross-generational differences in linguistic and cognitive spatial frames of reference in Negev Arabic
  12. Sociotopography meets Dialectology: the case of Aquilan
  13. Conflation of spatial reference frames in deaf community sign languages
  14. Linguistic spatial reference systems across domains: How people talk about space in sailing, dancing, and other specialist areas
  15. The influence of language, culture, and environment on the use of spatial referencing in a multilingual context: Taiwan as a test case
  16. Reference frames in language and cognition: cross-population mismatches
  17. From the field into the lab: causal approaches to the evolution of spatial language
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 19.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0007/html
Scroll to top button