• MultilingualSydney

OzSpace: The Sociotopography of Indigenous Australian languages

Bill Palmer University of Newcastle


Date: 7 May 2021

Time: 3 - 4 pm AEST

Venue: 09 Wally's Walk Tute Rm 133

Zoom

If you can’t make it in person, the presentation will also take place via zoom:

The Zoom link is https://macquarie.zoom.us/j/86099150226?pwd=Z3hCUVpOUjZTWEV5T1ZIMGFmM2pFUT09

Password: 326974


Bill Palmer is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Newcastle. He holds an MA and PhD from the University of Sydney. Before joining Newcastle he held lectureships in the Pacific Languages Unit at the University of the South Pacific and at the University of Leeds, then a research post in the Surrey Morphology Group at the University of Surrey. He has worked extensively in the field in the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Vanuatu and Fiji. His research lies in the languages of Melanesia and Papua, in linguistic typology, and in spatial language and spatial cognition. He is Vice President of the Australian Linguistics Society, and a Fellow of Goodenough College London.

Abstract


Australian languages are widely cited as depending overwhelmingly on abstract cardinal terms such as east and south for spatial reference, rather than egocentric projections such as in front of or to the left of, or geomorphic projections such as upriver or seaward (Dasen & Mishra 2010:301-302; Levinson 2003:75,336; Majid et al. 2004), supporting neo-Whorfian claims that arbitrary linguistic categories shape conceptual representations of space (Le Guen 2011; Levinson 2003; Majid et al 2004). However, considerable under-recognized diversity exists in Australian spatial reference. Egocentric projections are more widespread than previously realised (Palmer et al 2019, 2021), and spatial systems invoking aspects of local topography are diverse and widespread, even pervasive (Hoffmann 2016; Hoffmann et al forthcoming; Palmer et al 2019, 2021). In many languages, multiple systems coexist, raising questions of what governs use of each. These findings support the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis (TCH), which proposes that aspects of a language’s spatial reference system often correlate with salient topographic features of the language locus (Palmer 2015; see Bohnemeyer et al 2014; Dasen & Mishra 2010:307-309), suggesting spatial representations are constructed at least in part in response to the environment.


Now a handful of cross-linguistic studies have found that diverse spatial referential strategy preferences operate among individuals within language communities (Bohnemeyer et al 2014; Cerqueglini 2018; Dasen & Mishra 2010; Shapero 2016), correlating with environment, group-level cultural practices (e.g. dominant subsistence mode), and individual demographic factors (occupation, age, gender, education etc) (Lum 2017; Palmer et al 2018a, 2018b; Schlossberg 2018). The Sociotopographic Model proposes that the role of the environment in shaping spatial language is mediated by the nature of each individual’s interaction with their environment, and other sociocultural factors (Palmer et al 2017). For Australian languages, intra-language diversity is only described for age, in three languages (de Leon 1995; Edmonds-Wathen 2012; Meakins & Algy 2016; Meakins et al 2016). The extent that TCH and sociotopography apply among Australian languages remains unknown.


The first step towards an empirically grounded understanding of the wider implications of Australian spatial reference systems is to establish what components of spatial systems actually occur in what combinations across the continent. This talk introduces the OzSpace project, which aims to characterize spatial systems across Australia, test hypotheses about the role of the environment and of sociocultural factors in shaping such systems, and reveal under-recognized aspects of Australian spatial systems. The project has two a broad threads: 1) A survey of spatial systems in 220+ languages, correlated with the topography of each language locus. 2) A rich field-based sociotopographic study of spatial language and spatial cognition in half a dozen languages whose communities retain demographic diversity. The talk also presents a new typology of projective spatial relations employed in the OzSpace project, including a rarely recognised category of egocentric extrinsic reference (the SAP-landmark strategy), and a new classification of types relative frame of reference.


References

Bohnemeyer, J., K.T. Donelson, R.E. Tucker, E. Benedicto, A. Capistrán Garza, A. Eggleston, N. Hernández Green, M. de J.S. Hernández Gómez, S. Herrera Castro, C.K. O’Meara, E. Palancar, G. Pérez Báez, G. Polian, R. Romero Méndez. 2014. 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


, Texas: Cognitive Science Society. 212-217.

Cerqueglini, L. 2018. Cross-generational differences in spatial language in aṣ-Ṣāniʕ Arabic. In C. Miller, A. Barontini, M.-A. Germanos, J. Guerrero & C. Pereira (eds.), Studies on Arabic Dialectology and Sociolinguis


tics Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of AIDA. IREMAM-Marseille

Dasen, P.R. & R.C. Mishra. 2010. Development of geocentric spatial language and cognition. An eco-cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

de Leon, L. (1995). They just hang out with the old fela: the development of geocentric location in young speakers of Guugu Yimithirr. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group; Working Paper 33. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute

Edmonds-Wathen, C. 2012. F


rame of reference in Iwaidja: Towards a culturally responsive early years mathematics program. PhD thesis: RMIT University

Hoffmann, D. 2016. FoR in Australian languages: An overview of Absolute systems. ms. University of Chicago.

Hoffmann, B., B. Palmer, B. & A. Gaby. Forthcoming. Geocentric directional systems in Australia: A typology. Linguistics Vanguard.

Le Guen, O. 2011. Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science, 35(5):905–938

Lum, J. 2018. Frames of spatial reference in Dhivehi language and cognition. Melbourne: Monash University PhD thesis.

Majid, A., M. Bowerman, S. Kita, D.B.M. Haun & S.C. Levinson. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3):108-114.

Meakins, F. & C. Algy. 2016. Deadly Reckoning: Changes in Gurindji children’s knowledge of cardinals. Australian Journal of Linguistics 36 (4):479-501

Meakins, F., C. Jones & C. Algy. 2016. Bilingualism, language shift and the corresponding expansion of spatial cogniti


ve systems. Language Sciences 54:1–13

Palmer, B. 2015. Topography in language. Absolute Frame of Reference and the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In R. de Busser & R. LaPolla (eds.) Language structure and environment. London: Benjamins. 179–226

Palmer, B., D. Hoffmann, J. Blythe, A. Gaby, B. Pascoe & M. Ponsonnet. 2021. Frames of spatial reference in five Australian languages. Spatial Cognition and Computation.

Palmer, B., J. Blythe, A. Gaby, D. Hoffmann & M. Ponsonnet. 2019. Geospatial natural language in Indigenous Australia: research priorities. In K. Stock, C. Jones & T. Tenbrink (eds.) Speaking of Location 2019: Communicating about Space at Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT). Aachen: RWTH.

Palmer, B., A. Gaby, J. Lum & J. Schlossberg. 2018a. Diversity in spatial language within communities: The interplay of culture, language and landscape in representations of space. In S. Winter, A. Griffin & M. Sester (eds.) Liebnitz International Proceedings in Informatics Vol. 114. 10th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2018). Dagstuhl Germany: Dagstuhl Publishing.

Palmer, B., A. Gaby, J. Lum & J. Schlossberg. 2018b. Socioculturally mediated responses to environment shaping universals and diversity in spatial language. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. 195–205

Palmer, B, J. Lum, J. Schlossberg & A. Gaby. 2017. How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for a Sociotopographic Model. Linguistic Typology 21 (3):457-491

Schlossberg, J. 2019. Atolls, islands and endless suburbia: space and landscape in Marshallese. Newcastle, Australia: University of Newcastle PhD thesis.

Shapero, J.A. 2016. Does environmental experience shape spatial cognition? Frames of reference among Ancash Quechua speakers (Peru). Cognitive Science 41:1274–1298




26 views0 comments