Elsevier

Language Sciences

Volume 54, March 2016, Pages 1-13
Language Sciences

Bilingualism, language shift and the corresponding expansion of spatial cognitive systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.06.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Neo-Whorfians claim that the structures our language uses to encode spatial relations influence how we conceptualise space.

  • We tested 107 Gurindji people using the ‘Animals-in-a-row’ rotation task.

  • We argue that the majority ‘viewpoint independent’ responses is a function of the continued reliance on Gurindji cardinals in large scale space.

  • The high number of ‘viewpoint dependent’ responses are a function of exposure to English literacy.

Abstract

Neo-Whorfians argue that the structures our language uses to encode spatial relations influence the way we conceptualise space. One explicit test of this link has been studies of how speakers of different languages configure arrays of objects in non-linguistic rotation tasks. Subjects perform these tasks differently depending on their dominant linguistic frame of reference: relative e.g. left/right terms, or absolute e.g. N/S/W/E terms. One prediction is that changes in the linguistic system should result in corresponding cognitive changes. Such a linguistic shift has occurred among Gurindji people (Australia). Traditionally Gurindji people used a system of cardinal directions, however many have now also been exposed to the English left/right system. This paper demonstrates that this language difference is reflected cognitively. The ‘Animals-in-a-row’ task was administered to 107 Gurindji people. The results show strong ‘viewpoint independent’ responses, nonetheless those with a Tertiary education gave significantly more ‘viewpoint dependent’ responses which we attribute to exposure to English, and perhaps associated literacy practices.

Introduction

Australian languages, particularly Guugu Yimithirr and Arrernte, have received a lot of attention in studies of language and spatial cognition, due to their absence of terms for ‘right’ and ‘left’ and their almost sole reliance on cardinal directions for descriptions of small-scale space, also called ‘tabletop space’. Where English speakers might say: The pencil is to the left of the book, speakers of Guugu Yimithirr, Arrernte and many other Australian languages express the same configuration using cardinal terms: The pencil is north of the book (Haviland, 1998, Levinson, 2003, Wilkins, 2006). Cross-linguistic work has demonstrated that Australian languages are not alone in their non-use of relative terms. A survey of a range of populations has revealed a number of languages which rely heavily on fixed bearing systems including other languages which use compass points (N–S–E–W) e.g. Hai//om (Namibia), Totonac (Mexico) and Juchitán Zapotec (Otomanguean, Mexico) (Pérez Báez, 2011), but also river drainage (upstream/downstream) e.g. Jaminjung (Australia), slope (uphill/downhill) e.g. Tzeltal (Mexico),1 and seaward/inland systems e.g. Longgu (Solomons) (Brown, 2003, Levinson, 2003, Majid et al., 2004, Pederson et al., 1998, Schultze-Berndt, 2006).

Languages which do not use relative terms have challenged the assumption that human spatial cognition is universally based on an egocentric orientation (Clark, 1973, Kant, 1991, Miller and Johnson-Laird, 1976). Speakers of these languages show cognitive differences in their conceptualisation of space compared with speakers of languages such as English, Dutch and Japanese which rely on relative terms. These differences have been demonstrated through rotation tasks, where participants are asked to memorise a particular configuration of objects and reproduce the ‘same’ pattern after a rotation of 180°. Pederson et al. (1998, p. 580) and Majid et al. (2004, p. 111) found that speakers of languages which use predominantly geocentric coordinate systems such as cardinals in descriptions of small-scale space respond differently on rotation tasks compared with speakers of languages which rely heavily on left/right terms. The results of these rotation tasks do not support the view that human spatial cognition is universal and underpinned by bodily coordinates. Instead they have been argued to support the neo-Whorfian hypothesis which proposes that linguistic structures shape the cognitive classification of the experienced world. With respect to space, it has been argued that the way a language encodes physical space affects the way its speakers think about space (Levinson, 2003, Levinson and Wilkins, 2006, Majid et al., 2004).

One implication of this claim is that, where language change is observed, changes to spatial cognition should follow. For example, if a person or a speech community shifts from a language which makes heavy use of a cardinal system to one which uses a relative system, then subsequent changes to the way the person or the community conceptualises space should also be observed. Similar predictions might be made for cases where speakers of a language lose or borrow a different system. Situations of language attrition in individual speakers or community-scale language loss provide some different contexts to test these claims.

This paper presents a case study of inter-generational language shift in the Gurindji community of Kalkaringi (northern Australia). Older members of the community speak Gurindji (Ngumpin-Yapa, Pama-Nyungan) which is similar to other Australian languages such as Guugu Yimithirr and Arrernte in its use of cardinal directions to encode small-scale space. Four compass points are found: kayirra ‘north’, kurlarra ‘south’, kaarnirra ‘east’, karlarra ‘west’ which have 28 different inflected forms encoding spatial cases, landforms and planes (Meakins et al., 2013, pp. 33–35). Younger Gurindji people speak a new language, Gurindji Kriol, which is a systematic admixture of Gurindji and Kriol (Meakins, 2011a, Meakins, 2011b). Although many Gurindji structures have been maintained in Gurindji Kriol, the cardinal direction system has virtually disappeared. Only 4 of the 28 inflected forms for each cardinal point remain and the functional domain of cardinal directions has also been reduced. Where cardinal directions are ubiquitous in Gurindji descriptions of large and small-scale space, Gurindji Kriol speakers favour deictics and gesture. Cardinal terms are only used sparingly in descriptions of large-scale space and only in small-scale space where the speaker is obscured from the hearer's view, rendering deictics and gesture insufficient. Gurindji Kriol speakers also have extensive exposure to English through schooling and the media, but have not compensated for this ‘gap’ in their inventory of spatial relators by adopting the English left/right terms in Gurindji Kriol. The form and function of spatial relations in Gurindji and Gurindji Kriol is described in detail in Meakins (2011c).

Given this significant inter-generational shift in the expression of space by Gurindji people and increasing exposure to English, the question then becomes whether corresponding changes in spatial cognition have also occurred. A rotation task called ‘Animals-in-a-row’ (Levinson et al., 1992) was administered to 107 Gurindji people: 30 Gurindji speakers (40+ years old) and 77 Gurindji Kriol speakers (5–39 years old) with different degrees of exposure to Western education delivered in English: 45 with primary education, 26 with high school education and 36 with a tertiary education (§3.1.1). A further 7 Gurindji-speaking participants with no Western education were also tested, but not included in the subsequent analysis due to the lack of an equivalent Gurindji Kriol group.

The Gurindji speakers largely replicated the performance of speakers of other languages which rely heavily on fixed bearings in descriptions of small-scale space which is consistent with a neo-Whorfian account (§3.1.5.1). The Gurindji Kriol speakers gave more relative responses but not significantly more than Gurindji speakers. The only significant difference was seen between participants who had a tertiary-level Western education and those who did not (regardless of their first language). We argue that (i) the majority ‘viewpoint independent’ (absolute) responses across language and education background is a function of the continued reliance on Gurindji cardinals in large scale space; and (ii) the correlation between the ‘viewpoint dependent’ (relative) responses with language and Western education experience is a function of the availability of an additional spatial description system through exposure to English. We also suggest that the correlation between the ‘viewpoint dependent’ (i.e. relative) responses and level of education may also relate to the development of literacy skills which is heavily based in an awareness of left and right and small-scale space, as when learning to write with a pen on a desk indoors. These results support neo-Whorfian claims about the link between language and cognition. They demonstrate that shifts in language (and perhaps introduced cultural practices) have a corresponding cognitive shift.

Section snippets

The expression of space and its implications for cognition

Cardinal points such as those found in Gurindji are spatial relators, that is they describe the relationship between a figure (object to be located) and a ground (the object, the figure is located with respect to). Spatial relators which specify different types of angular relations between a figure and a ground can be classified in terms of linguistic coordinate systems called ‘frames of reference’. The term ‘frames of reference’ has had various instantiations, however the work of Levinson

Spatial cognition in Gurindji and Gurindji Kriol speakers

Based on the natural data alone, it would be easy to conclude that, in comparison with their older relatives, Gurindji Kriol speakers had become ‘unhinged’ with respect to their mental map of the world. Yet the results of the ‘Man-and-tree’ task seem to show that the internal compass of Gurindji Kriol speakers is still in operation. Gurindji Kriol speakers can use cardinal directions when the communicative context demands it, which seems to suggest that they still orientate themselves in the

Conclusion

This paper has established that changes in the expression of spatial relations have corresponding effects on spatial cognition. While most Gurindji participants gave ‘viewpoint independent’ responses in the ‘Animals-in-a-row’ task, significantly more numbers of ‘viewpoint dependent’ responses were given by participants with a Tertiary-level Western education. Time spent in the Western education system involves increased exposure to English, which is a relative-encoding language. It seems likely

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by an ELDP grant held through the University of Manchester (IPF0134; C.I. Meakins) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language (CE140100041). Thanks also to Amanda Vincent Nimarra and Rosy Smiler Nangari at Daguragu who helped conduct some of the ‘Animals-in-a-row’ tasks; and to Steven Levinson and the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen (The Netherlands) for access to the space stimuli kit. Also thanks to the

References (42)

  • G. Polian et al.

    Uniformity and variation in Tseltal reference frame use

    Lang. Sci.

    (2011)
  • B. Tversky et al.

    Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions

    Cogn. Psychol.

    (1991)
  • A. Benton

    Dyslexia and spatial thinking

    Ann. Dyslexia

    (1984)
  • J. Bohnemeyer

    Elicitation task: frames of reference in discourse

  • L. Boroditsky et al.

    Remembrances of times east: absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian Aboriginal Community

    Psychol. Sci.

    (2010)
  • P. Brown

    A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal

  • H.H. Clark

    Space, time, semantics and the child

  • E. Danziger

    Deixis, gesture and spatial frame of reference

    Stud. Lang.

    (2010)
  • E. Danziger et al.

    Through the looking glass: literacy, writing systems and mirror-image discrimination

    Writt. Lang. Lit.

    (1998)
  • A. Gaby

    TheThaayorre think of time like they talk of space

    Front. Psychol.

    (2012)
  • J. Haviland

    Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions

    Ethos

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    The editoral process of this article was handled by the previous Editor in Chief, Umberto Ansaldo

    View full text