Referential complementarity in traditional Negev Arabic

in Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) are mental coordinate systems applied to locate a Figure (F) with respect to a Ground (G). In Levinson’s theory (2003), every language selects a dominant FoR among Intrinsic, Relative and Absolute, leaving non-dominant FoRs for restricted sets of cases. Bohnemeyer (2011) enlarged this typology, describing ‘referentially promiscuous systems’, as characterized by free switch among FoRs and absence of a default strategy used by the whole community. We show here that Traditional Negev Arabic (TNA) represents a new, hitherto unknown type, which we label ‘referential complementarity’: all its speakers use all three FoRs in everyday discourse, yet not freely switching among them. Different Gs of traditional life, when observed in their traditional locations, prime specific referential strategies: inherently partitioned Gs (horse/coffee-pot) prime the binary Intrinsic FoR; those with no inherent partition (stone/tree) prime ternary Relative or Absolute FoRs, depending on their alignment vis-à-vis the Observer (O). Interestingly, culturally salient objects considered integral to the tent, such as a hosting cushion or a tent pole, absorb the tent’s Intrinsic orientation; but outside the tent these behave just like their non-tent-integral counterparts (stone/tree). In particular, the Absolute FoR is used for (i) culturally unfamiliar Gs (chair/shoe/dinosaur) and (ii) certain Gs in non-salient O-F-G alignments. We conclude that FoR selection in TNA follows culture-specific rules, paying more attention to cultural familiarity or salience than to supposedly universal metrical and formal features.

Referential complementarity in traditional Negev Arabic

in Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics



Alatamin M. (2011). Ethnographic and linguistic aspects of the Negev Bedouin Arabic lexicon. PhD dissertation Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Parts III (unpublished).

Ameka F.K. & Essegbey J. (2006). Elements of the grammar of space in Ewe. In S.C. Levinson & D.P. Wilkins (Eds.) Grammars of space (pp. 359–399). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Blanc H. (1970). The Arabic dialect of the Negev Bedouins. Proceedings of the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities Vol. 4(7) pp. 112–150. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press.

Bohnemeyer J. (2008). Elicitation task: Frames of reference in discourse—the Ball & Chair pictures. In G. Pérez Báez (Ed.) MesoSpace: Spatial language and cognition in Mesoamerica. 2008 Field Manual. Unpublished Results University at Buffalo—SUNY ( pp. 34–37.

Bohnemeyer J. (2011). Spatial FoRs in Yucatec: Referential promiscuity and task specificity. In C. O’Meara & G. Pérez Báez (Eds.) FoRs in Mesoamerican languages. Language Science Vol. 33 (6) 892–914.

Bohnemeyer J. & Stolz C. (2006). Spatial reference in Yucatek Maya: A survey. In Levinson S.C. & Wilkins D.P. (Eds.) Grammars of space (pp. 273–310). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown P. & Levinson S.C. (1993). ‘Uphill’ and ‘Downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology Vol. 3(1) 46–70.

Cerqueglini L. (2012). Space in language and cognition in Sangih Islands. Mission Report for Nanyang Technological University of Singapore (unpublished).

Cerqueglini L. (2015). Object-based selection of spatial FoRs in aṣ-Ṣāniˁ Arabic. PhD dissertation University of Pisa and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Pisa PUP.

Danziger E. & Gaskins S. (1993). Exploring the Intrinsic Frame of Reference. In Levinson S.C. (Ed.) Cognition and space kit (Version 1.0): July 1993 pp. 53–64. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Fawcett A.Z. (2012). Documenting language culture and cognition: Language and space among the Waorani. BA Thesis Bryn Mawr College (unpublished).

Henkin R. (2007). Negev Arabic. In K. Versteegh et al. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics Vol. 3 (pp. 360–369). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Henkin R. (2010). Negev Arabic: Dialectal sociolinguistic and stylistic variation. Semitica Viva Vol. 48. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Henkin R. (2010–2014). CTNA—Corpus of Traditional Negev Arabic: Recorded oral texts (unpublished).

Henkin R. & Cerqueglini L. (forthcoming). Spatial Language and Culture: Cardinal Directions in Traditional Negev Arabic and Related Dialects. Anthropological Linguistics.

Hill C. (1982). Up/down front/back left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenborn & W. Klein (Eds.) Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration (pp. 11–42). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Levinson S.C. (1996). Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 25 353–382.

Levinson S.C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson S.C. Brown P. Danziger E. De León L. Haviland J.B. Pederson E. & Senft G. (1992). Man and tree & space games. In Levinson S.C. (Ed.) Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992 pp. 7–14. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Levinson S.C. & Meira S. (2003). The language and cognition group. ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain—Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in cognitive typology. Language Vol. 79 (3) 485–516.

Levinson S.C. & Wilkins D. (Eds.) (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

O’Meara C. Perez Baez G. & Bohnemeyer J. (2011). An introduction to Frames of Reference in Mesoamerican languages. Language Sciences Vol. 33 837–852.

Palva H. (1991). Is there a North West Arabian dialect group? In M. Forstner (Ed.) Festgabe für Hans-Rudolf Singer pp. 151–166. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Pederson E. Danziger E. Wilkins D. Levinson S.C. Kita S. & Senft G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language Vol. 74 557–589.

Shawarbah M. (2007). Ha-dialekt ha-bedui šel ha-Tiyāha ba-Negev [The Bedouin dialect of the Tiyāha in the Negev: Phonology morphology and some selected syntactic issues]. PhD dissertation Hebrew University Jerusalem (unpublished).

Shawarbah M. (2012). A grammar of Negev Arabic: Comparative studies texts and glossary in the Bedouin dialect of the ˁAzāzmih tribe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Talmy L. (1972). Semantic Structures in English and Atsugewi. PhD dissertation University of California Berkeley.

Watson M.E. Pickering M.J. & Braningan H.P. (2006). An empirical investigation into spatial reference frame taxonomy using dialogue. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1434–1439). Mahwan NJ: Erlbaum.


  • View in gallery
    Figure 1

    Application of the Relative FoR: three ways to project O-center axes (X) onto G (X1)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 2

    Alignment status of FG with respect to O’s visual field

  • View in gallery
    Figure 3a

    G-Donkey/horse/man priming Intrinsic FoR

  • View in gallery
    Figure 3b

    G-Donkey/horse/man priming Intrinsic FoR (cont.)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 4

    G-pole/cushion inside the tent priming Intrinsic FoR (O facing north)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 5a

    G-stone/tree [+aligned] to O priming Relative FoR

  • View in gallery
    Figure 5b

    G-stone/tree [+aligned] to O priming Relative FoR (cont.)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 6

    G-pole/cushion [+aligned] to O (facing FG) outside tent priming Relative FoR

  • View in gallery
    Figure 7

    G-chair/shoe priming Absolute FoR (G-dependent use)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 8

    G-tree/stone [-aligned] to O priming Absolute FoR (axis-dependent use)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 9

    G-pole/cushion [-aligned] to O outside tent priming Absolute FoR (G+axis- dependent use)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 10

    Summary of FoR selection criteria


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 48 48 19
Full Text Views 59 59 52
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0