How Many Reference Frames?

  • Eric Pederson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2685)


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.


Reference Frame Cardinal Direction Local Landmark Ground Object Route Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C.: “Uphill” and “Downhill” in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (1993) 46–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Carlson, L.A.: Selecting a reference frame. Spatial Cognition & Computation 1 (1999) 365–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson-Radvansky, L.A.I., David E.: Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition 46 (1993) 223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson-Radvansky, L.A.T., Zhihua: Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition 28 (2000) 812–820Google Scholar
  8. Davies, C. and Pederson, E.: Grid patterns and cultural expectations in urban wayfinding. In Montello, D.R.(ed.) Spatial Information Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2001) 400–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hill, C.: Spatial perception and linguistic encoding: A case study in Hausa and English. Studies in African Linguistics 5 (1974) 135–148Google Scholar
  11. Hill, C.: Up/down, front/back, left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Pragmatics and Beyond 3 (1982) 13–42Google Scholar
  12. Landau, B. and Jackendoff, R.: “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. In Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (1993) 217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Miller, G.A. and Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Language and perception. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1976)Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Levinson, S., Kita, S., Senft, G. and Wilkins, D.: Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74 (1998) 557–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Taylor, H.A. and Tversky, B.: Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31 (1992) 261–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, H.A.N., Susan J; Faust, Robert R; Holcomb, Phillip J.: “Could you hand me those keys on the right?” Disentangling spatial reference frames using different methodologies. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1 (1999) 381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tolman, E.C.: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55 (1948) 189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Wassmann, J. and Dasen, P.R.: Balinese spatial orientation: some empirical evidence for moderate linguistic relativity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (New Series) 4 (1998) 689–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Pederson
    • 1
  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of OregonUSA

Personalised recommendations