Sociocultural mediation in responses to environment Bill Palmer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sociocultural mediation in responses to environment

Bill Palmer University of Newcastle Alice Gaby Monash University Jonathon Lum Monash Jonathan Schlossberg Newcastle

Universality and variation

• Extent to which representations of space are universal
• Extent to which variation is systematic
• Patterns/systematicity in variation reflects something:

– response to environment? – culture? – constraints of language structure? – something else?

Linguistic responses to external world

• Use of references anchored in external environment

– uphill-downhill – landward-seaward – upriver-downriver – upwind-downwind – etc

• Relative FoR preference in urban societies
• Does systematic variation show universal responses

to environment?

• Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis (Palmer 2015)
• Tool to investigate extent to which linguistic spatial

reference responds to environment

• Predicts:

– languages spoken in similar environments will have corresponding similarities in any absolute spatial system – languages spoken in differing environments will have absolute spatial systems that differ in corresponding ways

• Aspects of spatial systems at odds with the predictions

direct attention to other potential causes of variation

• Environment Variable Method for testing TCH
• Treats environment as controlled variable

Strategy preference - nature of referential anchor

• Extent to which reference anchor is:

– figure/ground-internal (intrinsic FoR, tree in Man&Tree orientations) – figure/ground-external (relative FoR, absolute FoR, landmarks, speech act participants (SAPs))

• Extent to which figure/ground-external reference is:

– egocentric (relative FoR, SAPs) – geocentric (absolute FoR, topographic landmarks)

Preferences in languages with multiple strategies

• Current work on atoll-based languages
• Comparing atoll Marshallese (Marshall Islands) with:

– singleton island Marshallese; urban Marshallese – atoll Dhivehi (Maldives)

• Dhivehi and Marshallese use:

– SAP – topographic landmarks – all three FoRs

• Distribution of references across strategies?

• Following slides shows results from man&tree
• Proportion of location descriptions with each strategy
• 4 Dhivehi locations:

– Malé (high density urban) – Addu (urban) – Laamu islands with predominant fishing occupation – Laamu islands with predominant white collar occupation

• 4 Marshallese locations:

– Jaluit island and Jabor island, both on Jaluit atoll – Kili singleton (non-atoll) island – Springdale Arkansas

• Points to notice in following slide:

– Consistent much higher use of intrinsic FoR across all Dhivehi locations compared with Marshallese – Significant preference for geocentric strategies (cardinals, topographic landmarks, ad hoc non-egocentric landmarks)

• ver egocentric strategies (relative FoR, SAP landmarks) in

atoll/island Marshallese, vs significant preference for egocentric strategies in urban Springdale Marshallese – Preference for geocentric in Laamu fishing islands, vs preference for egocentric in Laamu non-fishing islands – Patterning of Laamu non-fishing islands with Dhivehi urban, not with Laamu fishing islands

• Notice also:

– Much higher use of topographic “landmarks” in Marshallese compared with Dhivehi – These primarily use of ‘lagoonside’ and ‘oceanside’ – These terms are grammaticized in Marshallese and occur in high frequency constructions – Corresponding terms in Dhivehi are lexicalised but not grammaticized and do not participate in specialized construction

8% 17% 30% 20% 13% 12% 12% 20% 25% 29% 34% 36% 17% 6% 17% 44% 24% 18% 9% 5% 5% 44% 16% 18% 14% 8% 12% 5% 15% 8% 4% 24% 34% 42% 6% 32% 29% 33% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malé Addu Laamu: non- fishing islands Laamu: fishing islands Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale Dhivehi Marshallese CARDINALS TOPOGRAPHIC LANDMARKS MISCELLANEOUS LANDMARKS SAP-LANDMARKS RELATIVE INTRINSIC/RELATIVE INTRINSIC VERTICAL

Man&Tree location descriptions

• The following slide combines

– all geocentric strategies – all egocentric strategies:

8% 17% 30% 20% 13% 12% 12% 20% 25% 29% 34% 36% 17% 6% 17% 60% 42% 21% 10% 6% 5% 58% 8% 12% 14% 33% 68% 75% 82% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malé Addu Laamu: non- fishing islands Laamu: fishing islands Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale Dhivehi Marshallese GEOCENTRIC EGOCENTRIC INTRINSIC/RELATIVE INTRINSIC VERTICAL

Man&Tree location – egocentric v geocentric v intrinsic

• The following slide eliminates all other strategies

(principally intrinsic) to show preference for type of figure/ground array-external strategy

• Note consistent geocentric preference in all Marshall

Islands locations, compared with urban Springdale

• Note egocentric preference in Dhivehi urban locations
• Note egocentric preference in Laamu non-fishing vs

geocentric in fishing islands – both locations have similar topography and population density. Only difference is nature and degree of engagement with external environment vs indoor occupation

• Similar results for similar reasons between men and

women, and between older and younger speakers

88% 77% 61% 24% 3% 7% 6% 94% 12% 23% 39% 76% 97% 93% 94% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malé Addu Laamu: non- fishing islands Laamu: fishing islands Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale Dhivehi Marshallese

GEOCENTRIC EGOCENTRIC

Man&Tree location – egocentric v geocentric preference

• The following 3 slides show corresponding results for
• rientation descriptions in man&tree

7% 9% 15% 33% 32% 46% 38% 14% 10% 12% 5% 26% 39% 8% 12% 6% 14% 15% 11% 22% 27% 37% 11% 6% 14% 12% 10% 5% 36% 35% 41% 14% 66% 25% 36% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malé Addu Laamu: non- fishing islands Laamu: fishing islands Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale Dhivehi Marshallese CARDINALS TOPOGRAPHIC LANDMARKS MISCELLANEOUS LANDMARKS TREE-DIRECTED SAP-LANDMARKS RELATIVE INTRINSIC VERTICAL

Man&Tree orientation description

3% 7% 34% 55% 53% 18% 10% 13% 7% 59% 39% 8% 12% 6% 14% 15% 11% 22% 27% 37% 35% 77% 75% 73% 78% 13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malé Addu Laamu: non- fishing islands Laamu: fishing islands Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale Dhivehi Marshallese GEOCENTRIC TREE-DIRECTED EGOCENTRIC INTRINSIC VERTICAL

Man&Tree orientation – egocentric v geocentric v tree

55% 60% 61% 19% 12% 15% 8% 82% 45% 40% 39% 81% 88% 85% 92% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malé Addu Laamu: non- fishing islands Laamu: fishing islands Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale Dhivehi Marshallese GEOCENTRIC EGOCENTRIC

Man&Tree orientation – egocentric v geocentric pref.

• In preceding slide note:

– even more clear cut patterning of Laamu fishing islands with Marshallese atolls/islands – clear difference between Marshallese atolls/islands vs urban – three patterns of egocentric vs geocentric preference:

• roughly 60%/40% preference for egocentric in (atoll-

based) Dhivehi urban/white collar communities

• roughly 85%/15% preference for geocentric in atoll/island

Marshallese and Dhivehi fishing islands

• roughly 82%/18% preference for egocentric in

continental urban Marshallese

Response to environment mediated by sociocultural factors

• Lexicalization of ‘inland’ vs ‘seaward’, ‘lagoonside’ vs

‘oceanside’ etc in both languages

– responses to environment

• Intrinsic preference in Dhivehi

– culture? language use?

• High use of topographic landmarks in Marshallese

– linguistic repertoire (grammaticized topographic terms)?

• Geocentric vs egocentric preference in fishing vs

nonfishing Laamu (ditto men vs women, older vs younger)

– degree and nature of interaction with environment?

• Conceptual representations of space are sensitive to

environment, but not simply and not only

• Notion of Sociotopography:

– Conceptual responses to environment – Mediated by sociocultural factors

• Research program:

– observe patterns/systematicity in variation in representations of space – hypothesise environmental, sociocultural, linguistic, etc bases for variation

SocioTopographic Model (STM)

2

Environment

• natural
• built

Culture:

• present/historical

interactions with environment

• spatially anchored

cultural practices (e.g. dance;

• riented burial)
• conventional

spatialized representations (e.g. maps;

• rthography)
• conceptualization
• f environment in

terms of the above Language use Linguistic repertoire