TIME AND SPACE IN TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE (TID): IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF LANGUAGE Engin Arik Purdue University earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 1
1. Introduction In the literature there are claims that time is conceptualized on the basis of space. Since entities in spatial relations are concrete and events in temporal relations are abstract, it is often stated that time is derived from space. There are findings that crosslinguistically spatial lexems are also used in temporal expressions. However, the lexical items in referring to space and time do not overlap exclusively. Nonetheless, these items are often neglected in discussions. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 2
Sign languages provide clear cases to observe this since spatial relations are encoded in signing space but little is known how temporal relations are conveyed. Nevertheless, it is suggested that optional temporal adverbials carry grammatical tense in certain syntactic positions in American Sign Language. In this talk, I will pursue a gestalt analysis, i.e. frames of reference, in order to account for spatial and temporal relations in Turkish Sign Language (TID). I will claim that time is not derived from space but both time and space share a similar underlying mechanism, i.e. frames of reference. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 3
Three main views in understanding the space-time relationship. 1. One view states that languages lexicalize/grammaticalize spatial terms into temporal terms. a descriptive view that is used to understand apparent commonalities in spatial and temporal terms found in diverse languages. However, it does not offer any explanation for the other temporal patterns in that the source is not space. Nor does it have any explanation for the apparent similarities in two domains. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 4
2. Another view states that space is basic whereas time is a metaphorical extension of space. moving-time perspective in which time is understood as moving as in approaching, coming, etc. moving-ego perspective in which time is understood as static and ego moves as in going to.! metaphor and conceptualization are not defined explicitly.! the domain of the metaphor is not defined explicitly.! there is not enough empirical evidence for this metaphor to exist crosslinguistically. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 5
! this view sees space is the most basic structure but does not discuss spatial language at all.! it is not clear how temporal and spatial axes are related.! the variations in expressing spatial relations on the basis of functional relations, extrageometric effects, and context and discourse effects on both spatial and temporal expressions are omitted entirely in metaphorical view. 3. In reference frames, the tools to investigate spatial language can be successfully applied to the investigations on time which I will pursue here. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 6
2. A Multi-modular Approach to Language In this talk I will assume a parallel architecture model of grammar in which the autonomy of the modules such as phonology, syntax, and semantics are acknowledged. Auditory information Smell Visual representation Syntax CS SR Haptic representation Emotion Action Proprioception Figure 1. CS-SR interactions (adapted from Jackendoff (1997 : 44). Phonology I Syntax I Semantics I Lexicon CS SR Figure 2. Interactions among SR, CS, Lexicon, Phonology, Syntax, and Semantics. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 7
3. Spatial Frames of Reference Frames of reference as coordinate systems, widely attested in typological studies, are combinations of F-G assignment and perspective. Reference Frames Origin Relation Type Egocentric vs. Allocentric Intrinsic Object Binary Allocentric Relative Viewpoint Ternary Egocentric Absolute Environment Binary Allocentric Table 1. The three reference frames. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 8
3.1. A Multi-Modular Approach to Spatial Frames of Reference the SR hypothesis in which SR specifies spatial information such as axes and perspective in its geometric format. the CS hypothesis in which CS specifies that spatial information in its format. 3.2. Spatial Relations in Turkish Sign Language (TID) TID signers (n=12; 3 females, 9 males; age range: 18-50; all native Deaf signers) are asked to give spatial descriptions. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 3. Testing item samples. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 9
On the basis of the SR hypothesis I hypothesized that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the locational and orientational information in the picture and that of the signing space in TID descriptions. As I expected I found mismatches between the input information and the description. Percentages Match 68 Mismatch 32 Table 2. Percentages of overall correspondences between the actual scene and the description. A logistic model with repeated measures shows that probability of match and mismatch is not dependent on locational or orientational information (p>.05). earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 10
Perspective is not marked with the lexical items. There is no use of lexical items such as LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, and BACK or in the predicate. TID signers employ intrinsic+relative since the linguistic forms, i.e. classifiers, encode locative-relational and inherent features of the objects with respect to each other, and intrinsic reference frames, i.e when there is mismatch. There was no description with either relative or absolute frame of reference taken. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 11
Example: CAR {H1} CAR-LOC=LEFT & ORI=RIGHT {H2} CAR-LOC=RIGHT & ORI=RIGHT Two cars, trucks, are located on the lateral axis and oriented toward right. CAR {H1}CAR-LOC=PROX& ORI=AWAY {H2}CAR-LOC=DISTAL&ORI=AWAY Two cars, trucks, are located on the sagittal axis and oriented away from me. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 12
The TID spatial descriptions are not the exact copies of the locational and orientational information in the testing items. These findings support the SR hypothesis. According to this, SR specifies axial information, i.e. vectors such as x, y, and z, and reference frames such as intrinsic, relative, and absolute. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 13
SR: {two things on x-axis; relative} SR: {two things on x-axis; intrinsic} CS: CS: TRUCK! [ ] " TRUCK! [ ] " ORIENT TOWARD ORIENT TOWARD LOC j LOC j TRUCK # BE AT TRUCK # BE AT ORIENT TOWARD ORIENT TOWARD LOC i LOC i BE AT BE AT earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 14
Intrinsic Intrinsic & Intrinsic & Relative Absolute & Absolute Relative & Absolute Intrinsic Mopan Japanese, Kgalagadi, Yucatec, Guugu Hai//om Dutch Tamil, Tiriyo, Ewe, Yimithirr Turkish 1, ASL Tzeltal 3, Tigrinya 2, Arrernte, TID, HZJ Warrwa Table 3. A typology of (spatial) reference frames. 1 See Arik 2003 for the discussion on the Turkish reference frames. 2 See Arik (ms.) on Tigrinya locatives. 3 See Pederson (1994) for an extensive discussion of the Tzeltal absolute system. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 15
4. Temporal Relations A situation, which is F, is located in the timeline with respect to now, G. Crucially, now is also egocentric. An allocentric perspective is taken when ego position is not relevant in the descriptions. For example, when a temporal encoding of a sentence comes from context but not an overt morphological marking with respect to now. 4.1. Temporal Frames of Reference Reference Egocentric vs. Origin Relation Type Frames Allocentric Intrinsic Situation Binary Allocentric Relative Ego & Now Ternary Egocentric Absolute - - - earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 16
Table 4. The temporal reference frames. There is no (temporal) absolute reference frame:! dates are not fixed points rather they are defined according to ego s now. For example, both on May 5 I will go to Chicago and on May 5 I went to Chicago are acceptable.! even with the years when the reference point is not available then it can be in the past or future. Right now 07.20.2007 is future for me but for the reader it is probably past.! there is neither 00.00.00 nor the ultimate end.! the distinction between past and non-past is also a developmental issue. For example, according to Friedman (2005), young children make mistakes in distinguishing whether an event happened in the past or is going to happen in the future. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 17
4.2. Temporal Relations in Turkish Sign Language (TID) Clear correlation in the formation of spatial and temporal terms in the front-back axis in signing (=body) space. BEFORE YESTERDAY BEHIND NOW TODAY HERE AFTER TOMORROW THERE earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 18
When some of these signs are used to modify time expressions, there is again a correlation in terms of the use of signing space. TWO DAY BEFORE two days ago TWO WEEK BEFORE two weeks ago TWO DAY AFTER two days later TWO WEEK AFTER two weeks later But the names of hours, days, months, seasons, and years are not correlated with respect to space. I also observed that there is no overt tense marker in TID. I SCHOOL GO I went to the school I SCHOOL GO I will go to the school earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 19
!Nonsentential time expressions are essentially modifiers of t when deictically motivated/lexicalized time expressions are in use a combination of intrinsic and relative reference frames is employed in TR. TR: {axial information: t; reference frame: intrinsic+relative} CS!In the use of other nonsentential time expressions, the reference frame is always intrinsic since there is no reference to viewer s perspective. TR: {axial information: t; reference frame: intrinsic} CS!In event sequences, previous utterance (G) refers to the event that happens before the following utterance (F) without any use of temporal adverbials. Intrinsic frame of reference no reference to ego s perspective. TR: {axial information: t; reference frame: intrinsic} CS earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 20
5. Implications for the Theory of Language Templates for SR and TR SR: {axial information, i.e. x, y, z, ; reference frame : intrinsic, relative, absolute} CS TR: {axial information: t; reference frame: intrinsic, relative} CS earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 21
1. space and time relationship is preserved. 2. an underlying (abstract) mechanism, i.e. frames of reference, for both space and time. 3. the current study provides evidence for the perspective taking, reference point, etc. not only in the temporal domain but also in the spatial domain. 4. the current approach does not neglect the lexical items that do not occur in both domains. 5. not only accounts for temporal adverbials but also tense. Hence, it captures temporality. 6. a multi-modular perspective and claims about the representations not only in language but also in the other domains of cognition. 7. predictions in that both spatial and temporal information should be represented in cognition but not necessarily in language. Thus, languages may not encode temporality in their morphology and they differ from each other in representing space. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 22
6. Conclusion This study presents a new approach to develop a cognitive analysis to understand both space and time in the theory of language and more specifically in a language that uses visual modality, i.e. Turkish Sign Language (TID). By using the same mechanism, i.e. frames of reference, I account for spatial and temporal relations in TID. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 23
Acknowledgements This study is supported in part by NSF grant (BCS-0345314) awarded to Ronnie Wilbur. I am grateful to Ronnie Wilbur who offered comments on the earlier draft. I thank Beril Tezeller Arik for her assistance in preparing testing items and her insightful comments on the ideas presented here. Aysel Basar assisted in TID data collection and transcription. Sabiha Orer also helped in collecting some of the data. I thank both. I am grateful to the Deaf TID signers who participated in this study and willingly shared their insights with me. Parts of this paper, i.e. space, are presented at CSDL-8 (with Marie A. Nadolske), WIGL5 (with Marina Milkovic), PLA2007. I also thank the participants of these conferences for their invaluable comments. References Alverson, H. (1994). Semantics and experience : Universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore, Maryland : The Johns Hopkins University Press. Arik, E. (2003). Spatial Representations in Turkish and Sign Language of Turkey (T!D). Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Amsterdam. Arik, E. (2005). The locative constructions in Tigrinya. Unpublished manuscript. Arik, E. (to appear). Locative constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TID). Proceedings of TISLR9. Arik, E. & Nadolske, M. A. (to appear). Conceptualization of space in Turkish Sign Language (TID). In S. Coulson (ed.) Language in Action. CSLI. Arik, E. & Milkovi!, M. (to appear). Perspective Taking Strategies in Turkish Sign Language and Croatian Sign Language. In LSO Working Papers in Linguistics, vol.7: Proceedings of WIGL 2007. Bender, A., Bennardo, G,, & Beller, S. (2005). Spatial frames of reference for temporal relations: A conceptual analysis in English, German, and Tongan. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 220-5). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. Boroditsky, L. (2003). Linguistic Relativity. In L. Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (pp. 917-921). London: MacMillan Press. Boroditsky, L. & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 2, 185-9. Burigo, M. & Coventry, K. (2005). Reference frame conflict in assigning direction to space. In C. Freksa, B. Krieg-Bruckner, T. Barkowsky, M. Knauff, & B. Nebel (eds.), Spatial Cognition IV, LNAI 3343, 111-123. Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar : tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Carlson, L. A. (2000). Object use and object location. In E. Van der Zee & U. Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces : Constraints on linking cognitive information (pp. 94-115). New York, NY : OUP. Carlson, L. A. & Van der Zee, E. (2005). Functional features in language and space. In L. Carlson & E. Van der Zee (eds.), Functional features in language and space : Insights from perception, categorization, and development (pp. 1-10). Oxford : NY, OUP. Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L. (in press). Time in the mind : Using space to think about time. Cognition. Chatterjee, A. (2001). Language and space : Some interactions. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 2, 55-61. Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 27-63). NY : Academic Press. Cogen, C. (1977). On Three Aspects of Time Expression in ASL. In L. Friedman (ed.), On the Other Hand (pp. 197-214). New York: Academic Press. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. New York, NY : CUP. Coventry, K. R. & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing, and acting : the psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. New York, NY : Psychology Press. Coventry, K. R. & Garrod, S. C. (2005). Towards a classification of extra-geometric influences on the comprehension of spatial prepositions. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space : Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development (pp. 149-162). NY : Oxford University Press. Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford : OUP. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 24
Dahl, O. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. New York, NY : Basil Blackwell Inc. Emmorey, K. (1996). The confluence of space and language in signed languages. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 171-209). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language : The semantics and morphosyntac of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg : Signum-Verlag. Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time : Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Philadelphia, PA : John Benjamins Publishing Company. Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structures. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 33-75. Haspelmath, (1997). From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world s languages. Munich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Friedman, W. J. (2005). Developmental and cognitive perspectives on humans sense of the times of past and future events. Language and Motivation, 36, 145-158. Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning. In M. Garris (ed.), Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought (pp. 203-222). Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press. Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space!time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 5, 537-565. Gentner, D. & Imai, M. (1992). Is the future always ahead? Evidence for system-mappings in understanding space-time metaphors. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 510-5). Bloomington, Indiana : Erlbaum. Grinevald, C. (2006). The expression of static location in a typological perspective. In M. Hickmann and S. Robert (eds.), Space in Languages : Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, (pp. 29-58). Philadelphia, PA : John Benjamins. Herskovitz, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition : An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. New York, NY : CUP. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Jackendoff, R. (1996). The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 1-30). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press. Janzen, T. (2004). Space rotation, perspective shift, and verb morphology in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 2, 149-174. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London : Routledge. Landau, B. & Jackendoff, R. (1993). What and where in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 2, 217-238. Levelt, W. J. M.(1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 77-108). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Levinson, S. C. (1996a). Frames of reference and Molyneux s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 109-170). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Levinson, S. C. (1996b). The role of language in everyday human navigation. MPI for Psycholinguistics, Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Working Paper, 38. Nijmegen. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. (2006). Patterns in the data : Towards a semantic typologie of spatial descriptor. In S. C. Levinson & D. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space (pp. 512-552). New York, NY : CUP. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics : Vol. 2. Cambridge, NY : CUP. Maillat, D. (2001). Directional PPs and reference frames in DRT. Proceedings of the workshop on temporal and spatial information processing Vol. 13. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M. & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 3, 108-114. Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2005). On the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29, 655-664. McGlone M. S. & Harding, J. L. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 5, 1211-1223. Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173-204. Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Robert, G. L. (2000). The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 25
Nikanne, U. (1990). Zones and tiers: A study of thematic structure. [Studia Fennica Linguistica 35]. Nikanne, U. (1997). Lexical Conceptual Structure and Syntactic Arguments. SKY Yearbook 1997. Nikanne, U. (2000). Some restrictions in linguistic expressions of spatial movement. In E. van der Zee & U. Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces : constraints on linking cognitive information (pp. 77-93). Oxford : Oxford University Press. Núñez, R. E., Motz, B. A., Teuscher, U. (2006). Time after time: The psychological reality of the ego- and time-reference-point distinction in metaphorical construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 3, 133-146. Núñez, R. E. & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them : Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 401-450. Pederson, R. (2003). How many reference frames. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel & K. Wender (eds.), Spatial Cognition III, LNAI 2685, 287-304. Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74, 557-589. Peterson, M., Nadel, L., Bloom, P., & Garrett, M. (1996). Space and language. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 553-578). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Pianesi, F. (2006). Temporal reference. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. V (pp. 94-136). Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing. Radden, G. (2003). The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. ZIF, 8, 2-3. Reichenbach, h. (2005 [1947]). The tenses of verbs. In I. Mani, J. Pustejovksy, & R. Gaizauskas (eds.), The Language of Time : A Reader (pp. 71-8). Oxford : OUP. Rice, S. (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Puetz & R. Dirven (eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 135-165). New York, NY : Mouton de Gruyter. Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick, Jr., & L. P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225-282). Plenum Press: NY. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol 1. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Tenbrink, T. (2005). Localising objects and events: Discoursal applicability conditions for spatiotemporal expressions in English and German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Bremen. Torralbo, A., Santiago, J. & Lupianez, J. (2006). Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science, 30, 745-757. Traugott, E. C. (1978). Spatio-temporal relations. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language: Vol. 3 Word Structure (pp. 370-400). Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press. earik@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~earik 26