How Many Reference Frames?
There is considerable cross-disciplinary confusion concerning the taxonomy of reference frames and no standard of comparison for reference frame usage exists to allow reliable comparison of cross-linguistic, crosscultural, and task-specific variation. This paper proposes that we examine reference frame selection in terms of the underlying component operations. The selection of these operations can be mapped out in a multi-dimensional space defined in terms of the scalar properties of the reference objects and their relationship to the speaker/viewer.
KeywordsReference Frame Cardinal Direction Local Landmark Ground Object Route Description
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aguirre, G.K. and D’Esposito, M.: Environmental knowledge is subserved by separable dorsal/ventral neural areas. Journal of Neuroscience 17 (1997) 2512–2518Google Scholar
- Bickel, B.: Spatial operations in deixis, cognition, and culture: where to orient oneself in Belhare. In Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.): Language and conceptualization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997) 46–83Google Scholar
- Brugman, C. and Macaulay, M.: Interacting semantic systems: Mixtec expressions of location. In Nikiforidou, V., VanClay, M., Niepokuj, M. and Feder, D.(eds.): Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 15-17, 1986. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley (1986) 315–327Google Scholar
- Carlson-Radvansky, L.A.T., Zhihua: Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition 28 (2000) 812–820Google Scholar
- Greenberg, J.H.: Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J.H.(ed.) Universals of language. Readings of linguistics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1978) 73–113Google Scholar
- Hill, C.: Spatial perception and linguistic encoding: A case study in Hausa and English. Studies in African Linguistics 5 (1974) 135–148Google Scholar
- Hill, C.: Up/down, front/back, left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Pragmatics and Beyond 3 (1982) 13–42Google Scholar
- Levelt, W.J.M.: Some perceptual limitation on talking about space. In van Doorn, A.J., van de Grind, W.A. and Koenderink, J.J.(eds.): Limits in perception: essays in honour of Maarten A. Bouman. VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands (1984) 323–358Google Scholar
- Levelt, W.J.M.: Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. and Garrett, M.(eds.): Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1996) 77–107Google Scholar
- Levinson, S.C.: Frames of References and Molyneux’s Question: Crosslinguistic Evidence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. and Garrett, M.(eds.): Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1996) 109–169Google Scholar
- Miller, G.A. and Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Language and perception. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1976)Google Scholar
- Montello, D.R.: Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In Frank, A.U. and Campari, I.(eds.): Spatial Information Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993) 312–321Google Scholar
- Pederson, E.: Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. In Frank, A.U. and Campari, I.(eds.): Spatial Information Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993) 294–311Google Scholar
- Talmy, L.: Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg, J.H.(ed.) Universals of human language. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California (1978) 625–649Google Scholar
- Tversky, B.: Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In Frank, A.U. and Campari, I.(eds.): Spatial Information Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993) 14–24Google Scholar