Skip to main content

Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems

  • Cultural Differences in Spatial Cognition
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS (COSIT 1993)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 716))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper concerns the linguistic and conceptual contrast between 1) egocentric or speaker-relative spatial reference (such as left/right systems) and 2) absolute spatial reference (such as the use of cardinal directions). Urban Tamils, like European culture, use NSEW exclusively with large-scale or geographic space. In stark contrast with this, rural Tamils use absolute NSEW to depict their manipulable space, e.g. objects located on a table, as well as their geographic space. Urban and rural Tamil speakers were asked to match photographs by verbal description. The director and matcher had identical sets to select from, but they could not see one another's choices. The photos in these sets varied either in the horizontal relations of the depicted objects or along some other nan-targeted relationship. Matches involving horizontal plane relationships were relatively more difficult for speakers using a relative system than for speakers using NSEW. The nature of these errors suggests that fundamental methods of manipulating conceptual representations of space vary according to the basic linguistic system used by each community.

Thanks to V. Krishnaswami and P. Velraj of Madurai for their invaluable assistance with data collection and transcription. Additional thanks to Christy Bowerman for help with the graphics and Misja Peters and Bernadette Schmitt for help with the statistics. Considerable thanks to David Wilkins and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the earlier draft of this paper. The remaining problems are mine alone.

This work is part of a larger project of about a dozen people (in the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics) using such techniques as described here to investigate various linguistic systems of representing spatial relationships from around the world. Thanks to the entire group for their contributions to the design of the project and for comparing their results in their languages of research with the Tamil results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Brown, P. 1991. Spatial conceptualization in Tzeltal. Working paper no. 6. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeón, L. 1991. Space games in Tzotzil: Creating a context for spatial reference. Working paper no. 4. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haviland, J. 1986. Complex referential gestures. Ms. Center for Advanced Study in The Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1992 Anchoring, iconicity and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. Working paper no. 8. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. 1982. Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Pragmatics and Beyond 3:13–42/

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. 1986. The semantics/pragmatics/kinesics of space in Guugu Yimidhirr. Unpublished paper presented at the University of Bamberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1992. Langauge and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Working paper no. 13. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Nijmegen. The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughren, M. 1978. Directional Terminology in Warlpiri. Working paprers in language and linguistics, no. 8. Launceston: Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. 1972. We. the navigators: The ancient art of landfinding in the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In J. Greenberg, et al. (Eds.) Universals of human language. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandeloise, C. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published under the title: L'espace en francais: semantique des prepositions spatiales, 1986.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Andrew U. Frank Irene Campari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pederson, E. (1993). Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. In: Frank, A.U., Campari, I. (eds) Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS. COSIT 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 716. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57207-4_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57207-4_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-57207-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47966-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics