Landscape in Spatial Cognition:
New field methods via
ethnosemantic and quantitative
approaches
RANDI MOORE
THE NEW FIELD METHODS WORKSHOP
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO, LINGUISTICS
APRIL 24, 2015
Outline
The larger project
Goals in the field
Language and communities of study
Why landscape? Why here?
Tasks
“New” methods
In progress…
The larger project
Linguistic Relativity
N
Role of language vs. non-linguistic factors on language
and cognition (Li & Gleitman 2002; Bohnemeyer et al 2012)
Domain: spatial frames of reference
◦ Conceptual coordinate systems used to locate and
orient entities
◦ Relative, Intrinsic, Geocentric frame types
W
E
S
Topography: local landscape features
Population geography: density
observer
Goals in the field
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Reference frames used in language (small-scale spatial descriptions)
Reference frames used in nonlinguistic cognition (memory encoding)
Lexical inventory for landscape/topography
Salience of landscape entities
Variation between speakers within communities
◦
◦
◦
◦
Age, gender
Education
Literacy
L2 use (Spanish)
◦ Variation between communities
◦ Population geography (census data)
◦ “Topography”
Isthmus Zapotec (Diidxa za)
Otomanguean language; Zapotecan branch
Tonal; VSO
100,000 speakers (INEGI 2010 census)
Endangered in most communities
◦ Shift to Spanish in younger speakers
Strong preference for geocentric reference frames in La Ventosa
(Pérez Báez 2011)
Communities of study
Isthmus of Tehuantepec
◦ La Ventosa
◦ Juchitán de Zaragoza
◦ Santa María Xadani
Communities of study
Isthmus of Tehuantepec
◦ La Ventosa
◦ Juchitán de Zaragoza
◦ Santa María Xadani
Communities of study
Isthmus of Tehuantepec
◦ La Ventosa
◦ Juchitán de Zaragoza
◦ Santa María Xadani
Communities of study
Isthmus of Tehuantepec
◦ La Ventosa
◦ Juchitán de Zaragoza
◦ Santa María Xadani
Why Landscape? Why here?
◦ Large speaker population
◦ Variation in population geography and landscape features
◦ Ethnophysiography: ethnosemantics of landscape
◦
◦
◦
◦
Lexical inventory
Salience of features
Conceptualization of domain
Use of features in different discourse contexts
◦ Direction giving
◦ Spatial descriptions
Tasks
Landscape Listing and Description Task (lexical inventory)
Route Description Task (salience of landscape entities)
Talking Animals (reference frames in language)
New Animals (reference frames in memory)
Demographic Survey (variables for multivariate quantitative
analyses)
Listing Task
Part 1: Listing landscape entities
◦ Analyzed for recurrence of landscape entities across
communities
◦ Establish salience of landscape features across populations
◦ Contribute to documentation and revitalization efforts
Part 2: Descriptions of entities
◦ Used to for semantic analyses
◦ Contribute to documentation and revitalization efforts
10 speakers x 3 communities
Listing Task Data
La Ventosa
Juchitán de Zaragoza
Santa María Xadani
Bi - wind
Bordo – side
Bize - well
Dani – hill
Dani – hill
Carreta – highway
Guchachi - ?
Guie – rock
Dani – hill
Guiigu – river
Guiigu – river
Esteru – marsh/swamp
Guixi – trash
Guiixhi – jungle?
Guiigu – river
Mani’ – animal
Guixi – trash
Guiixhi – jungle?
Nisa/nisa do’ – water/sea
Mani huinni – animal
Layu – ground
Yaga - tree
Nisa – water
Nisa do’ – sea
Yaga – tree
Ranya - milpa
Yuu - house
Preliminary findings
Route description task
Guessing game between pairs
◦ Elicits route descriptions
Analyze descriptions for landscape entities used in
direction giving
Compare to landmarks used in Talking Animals
5 pairs of speakers x 3 communities
Talking Animals
Matching game (referential
communication task)
◦ Adapted from Ball & Chair (Bohnemeyer
2008), Men & Tree (Pederson et al 1998)
Analyze Director’s speech
◦ Spatial reference frames
◦ Landscape entities used
40 pairs of speakers x 3 communities
New Animals
Recall memory
Placement under 180° rotation
◦ Adapted from Animals in a Row (Pederson et al 1998, inter alia)
Egocentric vs. Geocentric spatial encoding
16 individuals x 3 communities
Quantitative Analyses
Linear mixed effects regression modeling
◦ (lmers; Bohnemeyer et al 2012, in press)
Include salience of landscape features
◦ Vs. general topography variable for region
“New” methods
• Explore effects of local landscape on reference frame use
• Lexical inventory
• Salience of landscape entities in local environment
• Use of landscape in small-scale spatial descriptions
• Quantitative analyses
• “Large” data sets
• Demographic data
• Ethnosemantics/cognitive anthropology
Still in progress…
Analyses of landscape data
◦What’s salient?
◦Significant variation between communities?
Modeling
◦Community identity?
◦Power and convergence
Thank you!
Special thanks to…
My assistants in the field
Reyna López, Rosalaura, Rosa, Veronica, and their families
My advisors and committee
Juergen Bohnemeyer, Gabriela Pérez Báez, David Mark, Cala Zubair
The UB Semantic Typology Lab
Funding: NSF DEL (BCS#1264064); UB GSA MDRF (#SP-13-19)
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.
Burenhult, N. & S. C. Levinson. 2008. Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language
Sciences 30(2/3): 135-150.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2010. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010.
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.
Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. 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: 943960.