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) over 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

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

• The following slide combines – all geocentric strategies – all egocentric strategies:

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

• 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

Man&Tree location – egocentric v geocentric preference 100% 6% 12% 90% 23% 39% 80% 70% GEOCENTRIC 76% 60% 93% 94% 97% 50% 94% 88% 40% EGOCENTRIC 77% 61% 30% 20% 24% 10% 7% 6% 3% 0% Malé Addu Laamu: non- Laamu: fishing Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale fishing islands islands Dhivehi Marshallese

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

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

Man&Tree orientation – egocentric v geocentric v tree 100% 13% 90% GEOCENTRIC 27% 35% 37% 80% 22% 70% TREE-DIRECTED 73% 75% 77% 78% 60% 12% 8% 39% 50% EGOCENTRIC 40% 59% INTRINSIC 30% 55% 53% 6% 15% 20% 14% 34% 11% VERTICAL 10% 18% 13% 7% 10% 7% 3% 0% Malé Addu Laamu: non- Laamu: fishing Jaluit: Jaluit Jaluit: Jabor Kili Springdale fishing islands islands Dhivehi Marshallese

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

• 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

2 SocioTopographic Model (STM) Culture: - present/historical interactions with environment - spatially anchored cultural practices Environment (e.g. dance; Language Linguistic natural • oriented burial) use repertoire built • - conventional spatialized representations (e.g. maps; orthography) - conceptualization of environment in terms of the above