Landscape and Spatial Reference:
Variation across
three communities of
Isthmus Zapotec speakers
Randi Moore ([email protected])
Doctoral Candidate, Linguistics, University at Buffalo, SUNY
www.buffalo.edu/~randituc
April 8, 2017
Association of American Geographers
Boston, MA
1
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
Background
N
• Huge variation in preferred use of spatial
reference frames
• Strategies for locating or orienting objects
W
E
S
• Vary by what anchors the reference frame
•
Speakers’ bodies
•
Environmental features
•
The objects themselves
observer
3
Reference frame use in small-scale horizontal space across
languages (Bohnemeyer & Levinson ms.)
4
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
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
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
3 communities of Isthmus Zapotec speakers
• Isthmus of Tehuantepec,
Oaxaca, Mexico
• La Ventosa
• Juchitán de Zaragoza
• Santa María Xadani
8
La Ventosa
• Subject to particularly strong
North-South “Tehuano” winds
• Pop.l: 4,884 (INEGI 2010)
9
Juchitán de Zaragoza
• Urban center of the Isthmus
• Most of data collected in
Cheguiigu ‘across the river’
• Pop.l: 74,825 (INEGI 2010)
10
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
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
SPATIAL REFERENCE FRAMES
N
W
• Strategies for locating or orienting objects
• Relative (speakers’ bodies)
E
S
• Geocentric (environmental features)
• Intrinsic (objects themselves)
observer
13
Percentage of Stimuli
Described by Frame Type
Talking Animals Spatial Descriptions
100%
93%
79%
78%
80%
Average of
Geocentric
60%
Average of
Relative
40%
20%
8%
17%
13%
0%
La Ventosa
Juchitán
Community
Xadani
14
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
Results of Predictive Models
• Geocentric frame use
• Predicted by Community membership (p<0.0125)
• Relative frame use
• (approaching significance)
16
Percentage of Stimuli
Described by Frame Type
Talking Animals Spatial Descriptions:
A closer look at Geocentric frame usage
100%
91%
80%
62%
60%
44%
46%
40%
20%
Average of
Absolute
22%
6%
Average of
Landmarkbased
0%
La Ventosa
Juchitán
Community
Xadani
17
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
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
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
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
Conclusion
• Communities draw on the local landscape to create
community-specific linguistic practices in their spatial
descriptions
22
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#1264064) & NSF Linguistics (BCS#1053123)
23
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. 2012. 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. 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, 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. 2015. The Contact Diffusion of Linguistic Practices: Reference Frames in Mesoamerica.
Language Dynamics and Change 5(2): 169-201. DOI:10.1163/22105832-00502002.
• Bohnemeyer, J. & S. C. Levinson (ms.). Framing Whorf: A response to Li et al (2011). Manuscript,
University at Buffalo.
24
REFERENCES
• Burenhult, N. & S. C. Levinson. (2008). Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language
Sciences 30(2/3): 135-150.
• 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. 463-493.
• 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
2010.
• 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): 155-188.
25
• Levinson, S. C. & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.). (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
REFERENCES
• Li, P., L. Abarbanell, L. Gleitman, & A. Papafragou. (2011). Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition, 120, 33–
53.
• Li, P. & L. Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83: 265-294.
• Mark, D. M., A. G. Turk, N. Burenhult, & D. Stea (Eds.) 2011. 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: 366-383.
• O’Meara, C. K. & G. Pérez Báez (Eds.). (2011). Frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. [Special issue].
Language Sciences 33(6): 837–852.
• Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. P. Wilkins, S. C. Levinson, S. Kita, & G. Senft. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial
conceptualization. Language, 74, 557-589.
• Pérez Báez, G. 2011. Spatial frames of reference preferences in Juchitán Zapotec. Language Sciences 33: 943-960.
• Terrill, A. & N. Burenhult. (2008). Orientation as a strategy of spatial reference. Studies in Language 32(1): 93–116.
26
• 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): 689–711.