Landscape and Spatial Reference: Variation across three communities of Isthmus Zapotec speakers

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Landscape and Spatial Reference: Variation across three communities of Isthmus Zapotec speakers"

Vivien Jones
6 years ago
Views:

1 Landscape and Spatial Reference: Variation across three communities of Isthmus Zapotec speakers Randi Moore Doctoral Candidate, Linguistics, University at Buffalo, SUNY April 8, 2017 Association of American Geographers Boston, MA 1

2 Introduction How does local landscape influence descriptions of small-scale space? Combine large-scale data analysis of spatial reference practices in discourse With ethnophysiographic studies 2

3 Background Huge variation in preferred use of spatial reference frames Strategies for locating or orienting objects Vary by what anchors the reference frame Speakers bodies Environmental features The objects themselves N W E S observer 3

4 Reference frame use in small-scale horizontal space across languages (Bohnemeyer & Levinson ms.) 4

5 Background Debate over source of variation, or what influences frame use Is it individuals levels of education/bilingualism/literacy, their local landscape or community size? (Li & Gleitman 2002; Li et al 2011) OR is it the cultural practices and first language that enable convergence of a community on a preferred strategy? (Pederson et al 1998; Levinson 2003; Levinson et al 2002; Bohnemeyer et al 2014, 2015) 5

6 The Current Study Combine quantitative and qualitative methods Large-scale analysis of spatial reference practices in discourse 40 pairs of speakers per community, allowing for analysis of multiple predictor variables Ethnophysiographic study of landscape Listing task shows what s salient to people in each community 6

7 The Current Study: Isthmus Zapotec Zapotecan branch of Otomanguean language family Verb-initial; Tonal Language ~100,000 speakers High rate of bilingualism in Spanish Unique for Zapotec languages Many speakers over a range of communities Allowed for by the topography of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (vs. Oaxaca) 7

8 3 communities of Isthmus Zapotec speakers Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico La Ventosa Juchitán de Zaragoza Santa María Xadani 8

9 La Ventosa Subject to particularly strong North-South Tehuano winds Pop.l: 4,884 (INEGI 2010) 9

10 Juchitán de Zaragoza Urban center of the Isthmus Most of data collected in Cheguiigu across the river Pop.l: 74,825 (INEGI 2010) 10

11 Santa María Xadani On the Laguna Superior; Salient hill situated in the middle of town Town name: zha na-dani means bottom-hill Pop.l: 7,613 (INEGI 2010) 11

small-scale space Referential communication task (Clark

12 Describing small-scale space: Talking Animals Pairs of speakers describe three-dimensional objects in small-scale space Referential communication task (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs 1990) Used to elicit spatial reference frames 12

13 SPATIAL REFERENCE FRAMES N W E Strategies for locating or orienting objects Relative (speakers bodies) Geocentric (environmental features) Intrinsic (objects themselves) S observer 13

14 Percentage of Stimuli Described by Frame Type Talking Animals Spatial Descriptions 100% 93% 80% 60% 78% 79% Average of Geocentric 40% 20% 8% 17% 13% Average of Relative 0% La Ventosa Juchitán Xadani Community 14

15 What predicts frame use? Generalized linear mixed-effects models (lme4 package, R) test influence of Community membership Use of Spanish as a second language Education Level Frequency of reading or writing (Population density) (Topography) 15

16 Results of Predictive Models Geocentric frame use Predicted by Community membership (p<0.0125) Relative frame use (approaching significance) 16

17 Percentage of Stimuli Described by Frame Type Talking Animals Spatial Descriptions: A closer look at Geocentric frame usage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 91% 62% 44% 46% 22% 6% La Ventosa Juchitán Xadani Community Average of Absolute Average of Landmarkbased 17

18 The need for Ethnophysiography (and qualitative data in general) We've seen Community membership is a significant predictor of Geocentric frame use Variation exists in type of Geocentric frame preferred in each community Why do these communities differ? Ethnophysiography helps find the answer 18

19 Ethnophysiography: Listing task Speakers asked (in Zapotec) to name things that are part of the environment, like hill, river, and forest 10 speakers per community Responses reflect the local landscape of each community The strong wind (a physiographic cue) in La Ventosa The nearby ocean in Xadani A general lack of salient landscape features in urban Juchitán 19

20 Word list data (prompt words in grey) La Ventosa Juchitán de Zaragoza Santa María Xadani Yaga tree (13) Yaga tree (12) Nisa do sea (10) Dani hill (13) Guiigu river (9) Dani hill (9) Bi wind (12) Dani hill (9) Guiixhi forest/jungle (7) Mani animal (9) Mani animal (8) Ranya milpa (6) Nisa water (7) Yuu house (5) Guiigu river (6) Guiigu river (7) Nisa water (5) Bize well (6) Nisa do sea (5) Guixi trash (5) Esteru marsh/swamp (5) Guie rock/soil (5) 20

21 What influences frame use? In this study, statistical analysis of frame use in discourse (Talking Animals) shows that community membership predicts a preference for Geocentric Previous crosslinguistic studies show similar findings (Bohnemeyer et al 2014, 2015) Within Geocentric, we see a more nuanced picture of how community membership is working Speakers in La Ventosa strongly prefer Absolute vs. other communities Ethnophysiography helps us explain why these communities show these preferences 21

22 Conclusion Communities draw on the local landscape to create community-specific linguistic practices in their spatial descriptions 22

23 Thank you! Xquixe pe laatu! Special thanks to My assistants in the field Reyna López, Rosalaura, Rosa, Veronica, and their families My advisors and committee Juergen Bohnemeyer, Jeff Good, Gabriela Pérez Báez, David Mark The UB Semantic Typology Lab Funding from NSF DEL (BCS# ) & NSF Linguistics (BCS# ) 23

24 REFERENCES Bohnemeyer, J., E. Benedicto, A. Capistrán Garza, K. Donelson, A. Eggleston, N. Hernández-Green, S. Hernández-Gómez, J. Lovegren, C. O Meara, E. Palancar, G. Pérez Báez, G. Polian, R. Romero, R. Tucker & V. Vázquez Marcos de referencia en lenguas mesoamericanas: Un análisis multivariante tipológico. Proceedings from CILLA V: the Conference on the Indigenous Languages of Latin America. Bohnemeyer, J., K. T. Donelson, R. Tucker, E. Benedicto, A. Capistrán Garza, A. Eggleston, N. Hernández Green, M. Hernández Gómez, S. Herrera Castro, C. K. O'Meara, E. Palancar, G. Pérez Báez, G. Polian, and R. Romero Méndez The Cultural Transmission of Spatial Cognition: Evidence from a Large-scale Study. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Bohnemeyer, J., K. T. Donelson, R. Moore, E. Benedicto, A. Eggleston, C. K. O Meara, G. Pérez Báez, A. Capistrán Garza, N. Hernández Green, M. Hernández Gómez, S. Herrera, E. Palancar, G. Polian, & R. Romero Méndez The Contact Diffusion of Linguistic Practices: Reference Frames in Mesoamerica. Language Dynamics and Change 5(2): DOI: / Bohnemeyer, J. & S. C. Levinson (ms.). Framing Whorf: A response to Li et al (2011). Manuscript, University at Buffalo. 24

25 REFERENCES Burenhult, N. & S. C. Levinson. (2008). Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences 30(2/3): Clark, H. H. & D. Wilkes-Gibbs. (1990). Referring as a collaborative process. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Eggleston, A. (2012). Spatial Reference in Sumu-Mayangna, Nicaraguan Spanish, and Barcelona Spanish. Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). (2010). Censo de Población y Vivienda Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. C., S. Kita, D. B. M. Haun, & B. H. Rasch. (2002). Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84(2): Levinson, S. C. & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.). (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26 REFERENCES Li, P., L. Abarbanell, L. Gleitman, & A. Papafragou. (2011). Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition, 120, Li, P. & L. Gleitman Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83: Mark, D. M., A. G. Turk, N. Burenhult, & D. Stea (Eds.) Landscape in Language: Transdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Mishra, R. C., P. R. Dasen, & S. Niraula. (2003). Ecology, language, and performance on spatial cognitive tasks. International Journal of Psychology 38: O Meara, C. K. & G. Pérez Báez (Eds.). (2011). Frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. [Special issue]. Language Sciences 33(6): Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. P. Wilkins, S. C. Levinson, S. Kita, & G. Senft. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74, Pérez Báez, G Spatial frames of reference preferences in Juchitán Zapotec. Language Sciences 33: Terrill, A. & N. Burenhult. (2008). Orientation as a strategy of spatial reference. Studies in Language 32(1): Wassmann, J. & P. R. Dasen. (1998). Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence for moderate linguistic relativity. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(1):

Framing Whorf: A response to Li et al. (2011)

Framing Whorf: A response to Li et al. (2011) Jürgen Bohnemeyer University at Buffalo SUNY Stephen C. Levinson Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen Keywords: Spatial