We argue that the human ability to linguistically describe spatial locations, relations and paths is likely to contribute importantly to human survival, and that consequently the relation between linguistic elements and structures used in spatial reference, and the environment in which humans navigate, ought to be of concern for evolutionary studies of language. We make the case for systematically studying the correspondences between the structures of human spatial language and the spatially structured practices of human groups within specific landscapes, and for considering this relation within a diachronic framework, as a process of cultural and linguistic adaptation to the physical environment. The last section presents the research design of the Nahuatl Space Project, which investigates the possibility of environmental adaptation of spatial language in four varieties of the Nahuan languages of Mexico.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Aporta, C. 2002. Life on the ice: Understanding the codes of a changing environment. Polar Record 38(207): 341–354.
Basso, K.H. 1972. Ice and travel among the Fort Norman Slave: Folk taxonomies and cultural rules. Language in Society 1(1): 31–49.
Bateson, P. and K.N. Laland. 2013. Tinbergen’s four questions: An appreciation and an update. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(12): 712–718.
Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J., 1975. The ethnography of speaking. Annual Review of Anthropology4(1): 95–119.
Berez, A.L. 2011. Directional Reference, Discourse, and Landscape in Ahtna. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Boeg Thomsen, D. and M.D.S. Volhardt. 2018. Spatial inflection and memory for direction in Acazulco Otomí. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 50(2): 208–241.
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, 29–32. Manuscript, University at Buffalo—SUNY (http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/MesoSpaceManual2008.pdf).
Bohnemeyer, J. and C. O’Meara. 2012. Vectors and frames of reference: Evidence from Seri and Yucatec. In L. Filipovic and K.M. Jaszczolt (eds.) Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Language, Culture, and Cognition (Vol. 37), 217–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Bohnemeyer, J., K.T. Donelson, R.E. Moore, E. Benedicto, A. Eggleston, C.K. O’Meara, G.P. Báez, A.C. Garza, N.H. Green, M.D.J.S.H. Gómez and S.H. Castro. 2015. The contact diffusion of linguistic practices: Reference frames in Mesoamerica. Language Dynamics and Change 5(2): 169–201.
Bowerman, M. and E. Pederson. 1992. Topological relations picture series. In S.C. Levinson (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992, 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Brown, P. 2006. A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal. In S.C. Levinson and D.P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space, 230–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, L. 2013. Historical linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Canger, U. 1988. Nahuatl dialectology: A survey and some suggestions. International Journal of American Linguistics 54(1): 28–72.
Canger, U. and K. Dakin. 1985. An inconspicuous basic split in Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(4): 358–361.
Cassirer, E. 1962. An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Childe, V.G. 1949. Social Worlds of Knowledge (No. 19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cogos S., M. Roué and S. Roturier. 2017. Sami place names and maps: Transmitting knowledge of a cultural landscape in contemporary contexts. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 49(1): 43–51.
Crowley, T. and C. Bowern. 2010. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dakin, K. 1982. La evolución fonológica del protonáhuatl. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Dakin, K. and Wichmann, S., 2000. Cacao and chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11(1): 55–75.
Dediu, D., R. Janssen, and S.R. Moisik. 2017. Language is not isolated from its wider environment: Vocal tract influences on the evolution of speech and language. Language & Communication 54: 9–20.
Evans, N. 2003. Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 32(1): 13–40.
Evans, N. and Levinson, S.C., 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448.
Enfield, N.J. 2014. Causal dynamics of language. In N.J. Enfield, P. Kockelman and J. Sidnell (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, 325–342. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Everett, C. 2017. Languages in drier climates use fewer vowels. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01285.
Everett, C., D.E. Blasí and S.G. Roberts. 2016. Language evolution and climate: The case of desiccation and tone. Journal of Language Evolution 1(1): 33–46.
Givón, T, 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Givón, T. 2002. Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Gnanadesikan, A.E. 2016. Dhivehi: The Language of the Maldives (Vol. 3). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Haviland, J.B. 1998. Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions. Ethos 26(1): 25–47.
Henshaw, A. 2006. Pausing along the journey: Learning landscapes, environmental change, and toponymy amongst the Sikusilarmiut. Arctic Anthropology 43(1): 52–66.
Hernández Vázquez, J.I. 2014. Marcos de Referencia y categorias de espacialidad en el Nawat de las Gardenias, Hueyapan, Puebla. In K. Dakin and J.L. Moctezuma (eds.), Lenguas Yutoaztecas: Acercamiento a su Diversidad Lingüística, 127–145. Ciudad de México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Hunn, Eugene S. (with James Selam and family). 1990. Nch’i-Wána “The Big River”. Mid-Columbia Indians and their Land. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Kari, J. 1985. A note on Athapaskan directionals. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(4): 471–473.
Kari, J. 2008. Ahtna Place Names Lists. Revised 2nd edition. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.
Kari, J. 2011. A case study in Ahtna Athabascan geographic knowledge. In D.M. Mark, A.G. Turk, N. Burenhult and D. Stea (eds.), Landscape in Language: Transdisciplinary Perspectives, 239–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kaufman, T. 2001. The History of the Nawa Language Group From the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century: Some Initial Results. Paper posted online at http://www.albany.edu/anthro/maldp/Nawa.pdf. University of Pittsburgh.
Krupnik, I. and L. Müller-Wille. 2010. Franz Boas and Inuktitut terminology for ice and snow: From the emergence of the field to the “Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax”. In I. Krupnik, C. Aporta, S. Gearheard, G. Laidler, L. Kielsen Holm (eds), SIKU: Knowing Our Ice, 377–400. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lastra de Suárez, Y. 1986. Las áreas dialectales del náhuatl moderno. México, D.F.: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
LaRochelle, S. and F. Berkes. 2003. Traditional ecological knowledge and practice for edible wild plants: Biodiversity use by the Rarámuri, in the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 10(4): 361–375.
Levinson, S.C. 1997. Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1): 98–131.
Levinson, S.C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (Vol. 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. 2006. Introduction: The evolution of culture in a microcosm. In S.C. Levinson and P. Jaisson (eds.), Evolution and Culture: A Fyssen Foundation Symposium, 1–41. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levinson, S.C. and D.P. Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (Vol. 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C., P. Brown, E. Danzinger, L. De León, J.B. Haviland, E. Pederson, and G. Senft. 1992. Man and Tree & Space Games. In S.C. Levinson (ed.) Space Stimuli Kit 1.2, 7–14. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2458804.
Lovis, W.A. and R.E. Donahue. 2011. Space, information and knowledge: Ethnocartography and North American boreal forest hunter-gatherers. In R. Whallon, W.A. Lovis and R. Hitchkock (eds.), Information and its Role in Hunter-Gatherer Bands, 59–88. Los Angeles: UCLA/Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Lovis, W.A. and R. Whallon. 2016. The creation of landscape meaning by mobile hunter-gatherers. In W.A. Lovis and R. Whallon (eds.), Marking the Land: Hunter-Gatherer Creation of Meaning in their Environment, 1–11, Abingdon: Routledge.
Lupyan, G. and R.A. Dale. 2015. The role of adaptation in understanding linguistic diversity. In R. De Busser and R.J. LaPolla (eds.), Language Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors, 287–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Lupyan, G. and R.A. Dale. 2016. Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(9): 649–660.
Macaulay, M. 2004. On the Karuk directional suffixes. In M. Ettlinger, N. Fleischer and M. Park-Doob (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 30(2): 85–101.
Maddieson, I. 2018. Language adapts to environment: Sonority and temperature. Frontiers in Communication 3: 28. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2018.00028.
Majid, A., M. Bowerman, S. Kita, D.B. Haun and S.C. Levinson. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3): 108–114.
Martin, L., 1986. “Eskimo Words for Snow”: A case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropological example. American Anthropologist88(2): 418–423.
Mendívil-Giró, J.L. 2018. Why don’t languages adapt to their environment? Frontiers in Communication 3:24. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2018.00024.
Moore, R. 2018. Spatial Language and Cognition in Isthmus Zapotec. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Nichols, J. 1984. Functional theories of grammar. Annual Review of Anthropology 13(1): 97–117.
O’Meara, C. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Seri. Language Sciences 33(6): 1025–1046.
O’Meara, C. (compiler). 2014. Comcaac coi ziix quih iti cöipactoj xah, ziix quih ocoaaj xah Hai quih pti immistaj coi iicp hac. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
O’Meara, C. and M. Henzi. In press. Mapeo de los nombres de lugares con los comcaac (seri). In L. Guerrero and F. Arellanes Arellanes (eds.), Estudios Lingüísticos y Filológicos en Lenguas Indígenas mexicanas. Celebración por los 30 Años del Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
O’Meara, C. and G. Pérez Báez. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. Language Sciences 33(6): 837–852.
Palmer, B. 2015. Topography in language: Absolute frames of reference and the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In R. de Busser and R. LaPolla (eds.), Language Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors, 179–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Palmer, B., J. Lum, J. Schlossberg and A. Gaby. 2017. How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography. Linguistic Typology 21(3): 457–491.
Pharao Hansen, M. 2014. The east-west split in Nahuan dialectology: Reviewing the evidence and consolidating the grouping. Paper given at the annual meeting of the Friends of Uto-Aztecan, Tepic, Mexico.
Polian, G. and J. Bohnemeyer. 2011. Uniformity and variation in Tseltal reference frame use. Language Sciences 33(6): 868–891.
Roberts, S.G. 2018. Robust, causal, and incremental approaches to investigating linguistic adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology 9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00166.
Roberts, S.G. and J. Winters. 2012. Social structure and language structure: The new nomothetic approach. Psychology of Language and Communication 16(2): 89–112.
Rosenblum, D. 2015. A Grammar of Space in Kwakw’ala. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Salgado Rodríguez, Á.H. 2014. Topological spatial relations and frames of reference in Santo Domingo de Guzmán Pipil: typological and historical implications. University of North Carolina: Master’s thesis. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/vt150j556.
Sapir, E. 1912. Language and environment. American Anthropologist 14(2): 226–242.
Seyfarth, R.M., D.L. Cheney and P. Marler. 1980. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210(4471): 801–803.
Shapero, J.A. 2017. Does environmental experience shape spatial cognition? Frames of reference among Ancash Quechua speakers (Peru). Cognitive Science 41(5): 1274–1298.
Sutrop, U. 2001. List task and a cognitive salience index. Field Methods 13:63–76.
Thiering, M. 2014. Spatial Semiotics and Spatial Mental Models: Figure-ground Asymmetries in Language (Vol. 27). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Tinbergen, N. 1963. On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20(4): 410–433.
Ünal, E. and A. Papafragou. 2016. Interactions between language and mental representations. Language Learning66(3): 554–580.
Von Frisch, K. 1974. Decoding the language of the bee. Science 185(4152): 663–668.
Vuillermet, M. and A. Desnoyers. 2013. A Hunting Story—Yendo a Cazar: A Visual Stimulus for Eliciting Constructions that Associate Motion with Other Events. Linguistic Department, UC Berkeley, unpublished ms.
Wassmann, J., and P.R. Dasen. 1998. Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence of moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(4): 689–711.
Widlok, T. 1997. Orientation in the wild: The shared cognition of Hai||om bushpeople. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3(2): 317–332.
Winter, B. and A. Wedel. 2016. Commentary: Desiccation and tone within linguistic theory and language contact research. Journal of Language Evolution 1(1) 80–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzv010.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1199 | 247 | 46 |
Full Text Views | 75 | 6 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 132 | 16 | 0 |
We argue that the human ability to linguistically describe spatial locations, relations and paths is likely to contribute importantly to human survival, and that consequently the relation between linguistic elements and structures used in spatial reference, and the environment in which humans navigate, ought to be of concern for evolutionary studies of language. We make the case for systematically studying the correspondences between the structures of human spatial language and the spatially structured practices of human groups within specific landscapes, and for considering this relation within a diachronic framework, as a process of cultural and linguistic adaptation to the physical environment. The last section presents the research design of the Nahuatl Space Project, which investigates the possibility of environmental adaptation of spatial language in four varieties of the Nahuan languages of Mexico.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1199 | 247 | 46 |
Full Text Views | 75 | 6 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 132 | 16 | 0 |