10. Vectors and frames of reference

Evidence from Seri and Yucatec

Jürgen Bohnemeyer | University at Buffalo

Carolyn O'Meara | Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Most linguistic and cognitive representations of space depend on frames of reference (FoRs). We show that FoRs play an equally important role in representations of the orientation of entities and representations of their location and direction of motion. We propose that orientation is conceptually encoded, not in terms of metaphorical path functions (Jackendoff 1983), but in terms of. Equipped with the notion of vectors, we introduce a distinction between two classes of FoRs: classical “angular-anchored” FoRs and the previously unrecognised “head-anchored” FoRs. In English, angular-anchored relative FoRs dominate in both locative and orientation descriptions. In contrast, in Seri and Yucatec, two indigenous languages of Mexico, object-centred angular-anchored FoRs dominate in locative descriptions, but head-anchored FoRs dominate in orientation descriptions.

Keywords: indigenous languages of Mexico, location, orientation, semantic typology

Published online: 24 July 2012
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.37.16boh

Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Beller, Sieghard, Judith Bohlen, Lisa Hüther & Andrea Bender

2016. Perspective taking in referring to objects behind versus in front of an observer: Frames of reference, intraindividual consistency, and response latencies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69:7 ► pp. 1384 ff.

Beller, Sieghard, Henrik Singmann, Lisa Hüther & Andrea Bender

2015. Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison. Frontiers in Psychology 6

Bender, Andrea, Sarah Teige‐Mocigemba, Annelie Rothe‐Wulf, Miriam Seel & Sieghard Beller

2020. Being In Front Is Good—But Where Is In Front ? Preferences for Spatial Referencing Affect Evaluation . Cognitive Science 44:6

Cerqueglini, Letizia

2022. Cross-generational differences in linguistic and cognitive spatial frames of reference in Negev Arabic. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s1 ► pp. 113 ff.

Cooperrider, Kensy, James Slotta & Rafael Núñez

2017. Uphill and Downhill in a Flat World: The Conceptual Topography of the Yupno House. Cognitive Science 41:3 ► pp. 768 ff.

Hoffmann, Dorothea

2019. Restrictions on the Usage of Spatial Frames of Reference in Location and Orientation Descriptions: Evidence from Three Australian Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 39:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Lum, Jonathon

2021. The intrinsic frame of reference and the Dhivehi ‘FIBO’ system. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 703 ff.

Lum, Jonathon, Bill Palmer, Jonathan Schlossberg & Alice Gaby

2022. Diversity in representing space within and between language communities. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s1 ► pp. 1 ff.

MOORE, KEVIN EZRA

2017. Elaborating time in space: the structure and function of space–motion metaphors of time. Language and Cognition 9:2 ► pp. 191 ff.

Nagaya, Naonori

2022. Directionals, topography, and cultural construals of landscape in Lamaholot. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s1 ► pp. 25 ff.

Nikitina, Tatiana

2018. Frames of reference in discourse: Spatial descriptions in Bashkir (Turkic) . Cognitive Linguistics 29:3 ► pp. 495 ff.

Wilke, Fiona, Andrea Bender & Sieghard Beller

2019. Flexibility in adopting relative frames of reference in dorsal and lateral settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 72:10 ► pp. 2393 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 july 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.