Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:42:07.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability of spatial frames of reference in wayfinding discourse on commercial signboards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2005

KUNIYOSHI KATAOKA
KUNIYOSHI KATAOKA
Affiliation:
English Education, Aichi University, Nagoya Campus, Kurozasa 370, Miyoshi, Nishikamo, Aichi 470-0296 Japan, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study focuses on the everyday use of spatial frames of reference (FoR) and seeks to elucidate the underlying principles for guiding viewers from a signboard to a destination. Using Levinson's tripartite typology of FoR – absolute, relative, and intrinsic – and a VARBRUL analysis, it is shown that each FoR is differentially preferred depending on distinct geographic features of the route and the environment. Specifically, as geographic scale and route complexity increase, there emerges a general tendency away from intrinsic descriptions, through relative descriptions, to absolute descriptions, despite the general low usage of the absolute FoR in modern Japanese. It is argued that the asymmetries in the shift and maintenance of FoRs could be largely, if not wholly, accounted for by using such strategies as “single-perspective” and “absolute-reliance” and properties of “untranslatability.”I wish to thank Shoji Takano, Akiko Kato, and Hiroki Yoshioka for their invaluable comments on the earlier versions of the paper and their technical support on the VARBRUL analyses. My gratitude extends to Jane Hill and the two anonymous reviewers for giving me supportive comments and new insights, and to Hisashi Miura for his extensive assistance in the data collection and coding process. I also greatly benefited from interviews with senior employees at Sankoo Advertising Co., Cutting Kei, and Toyota Kookoku, and from various comments and inquiries from participants in the 11th Meeting of the Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences, the 37th SIG-SLUD Meeting of the Japanese Society of Artificial Intelligence, and the 28th Open Symposium: “Language” at Aichi University. The research for this article was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 12610566), 2000–2003 (Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture). All misconceptions and errors are of course my own.

Keywords

Absolute/relative/intrinsic perspectiveslanguage variationmedia discoursespatial frame of referencewayfinding
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 593 - 632
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Gary L. (1999). Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding: Bases for individual differences in spatial cognition and behavior. In R.G. Golledge (ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive and other spatial processes, 46–80. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bayley, Robert (2002). The quantitative paradigm. In J. K. Chambers et al, (eds.), Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 117–41. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bennardo, Giovanni (2000). Language and space in Tonga: “The front of the house is where the chief sits!” Anthropological Linguistics 42:499–544.Google Scholar
Boddewyn, Jean J. (1992) (ed.). Global perspectives on advertising self-regulation: Principles and practices in thirty-eight counrties. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Brown, Gillian (1995). Speakers, listeners and communication: Explorations in discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Bryant, David J.; Tversky, Barbara; & Franklin, Nancy (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes. Journal of Memory and Language 31:74–98.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl (1982 [1934]). The deictic field of language and deictic words. In R. J. Jarvalla & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 9–30. Chichester: John Wiley.
Carlson, Laura A. (1999). Selecting a reference frame. Spatial Cognition, andComputation 1:365–79.Google Scholar
Carroll, Mary (1997). Changing place in English and German: Language-specific preferences in the conceptualization of spatial relations. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, 137–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Clark, Herbert H., & Schaefer, Edward F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13:259–94.Google Scholar
Danziger, Eve (1996). Parts and their counter-parts: Social and spatial relationships in Mopan Maya. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute inc. Man 2:67–82.Google Scholar
Ehrich, Veronika, & Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Processes 6:169–95.Google Scholar
Enfield, Clifton W. (1969). Federal highway beautification: Outdoor advertising control, legislation, and regulation. In J. Houck (ed.), Outdoor advertising: History and regulation, 149–82. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Frank, Andrew U., & Mark, David (1991). Language issues for GIS. In D. Maguire et al. (eds.), Geographic information system: Principles and applications, 147–63. London: Longman.
Funakoshi, Mikio (1998). Kanban no sekai [The world of signboards]. Tokyo: Taikoosha.
Golledge, Reginald G. (1999). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In R. G. Golledge (ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive and other spatial processes, 5–45. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hanks, William F. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hart, Roger A., & Moore, Gary T. (1973). The development of spatial cognition: A review. In R.M. Downs & D. Stea (eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behaviour, 246–88. Chicago: Adeline.
Haviland, John B. (1993). Anchoring, iconicity and orientation in Guugu Yimidhirr pointing gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3:3–45.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. (1996). Projections, transpositions, and relativity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 271–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haviland, John B. (2000). Pointing, gesture spaces, and mental maps. In D. McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 13–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Hutchins, Edwin (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Inoue, Kyoko (2002). Zettai to sootai no hazama de: Kuukan shijiwaku niyoru komyunikeeshon [In between the absolute andthe relative: Communication through spatial frames of reference]. In T. Oohori (ed.), Ninchi Gnegogaku II: Kategorii-ka [Cognitive linguistics II: Categorization], 11–35. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Jammer, Max (1993). Concepts of space: The history of theories of space in physics. 3rd ed. New York: Dover.
Kataoka, Kuniyoshi. (1998). Gravity or levity: Vertical space in Japanese rock climbing instructions. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8:222–48.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang (1982). Local deixis in route directions. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action, 161–82. Chichester: John Wiley.
Klein, Wolfgang (1983). Deixis and spatial orientation in route directions. In H. L. Pick Jr. (ed.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, 283–311. New York: Plenum.CrossRef
Kurath, Hans, & McDavid, Raven (1961). The pronunciation of English in the Atlantic states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levelt, Willem J.M. (1982). Cognitive styles in the use of spatial direction terms. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action, 251–68. Chichester: Wiley.
Levelt, Willem J.M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In P. Bloom et al. (eds.), Language and Space, 77–107. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1994). Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 32:791–855.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1996a). Language and space. In W. H. Durham et al. (eds.), Annual review of anthropology 25:353–82. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1996b). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In P. Bloom et al. (eds.), Language and space, 77–107. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2001). Covariation between spatial language and cognition, and its implications for language learning. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Language development and conceptual development, 566–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Levinson, Stephen C., & Brown, Penelope (1994). Immanuel Kant among the Tenejapans. Ethos 22:3–41.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1976). Observations on route finding and spatial orientation among the Aboriginal peoples of the western desert region of Central Australia. Oceania 45:249–82.Google Scholar
Li, Naicong, & Zubin, David A. (1995). Discourse continuity and perspective taking. In J. Duchan et al. (eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective, 287–307. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linde, Charlotte, & Labov, William (1975). Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51:924–39.Google Scholar
Lucy, John (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:291–312.Google Scholar
Lynch, Kevin (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mainwaring, Scott; Tversky, Barbara; Ohgishi, Motoko; & Schiano, Diane (2003). Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spatial Cognition and Computation 3:3–42.Google Scholar
Mark, David, & Gould, Michael D. (1995). Wayfinding directions as discourse: Verbal directions in English and Spanish. In J. Duchan et al. (eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective, 387–405. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McElhinny, Bonnie (1999). More on the third dialect of English: Linguistic constraints on the use of three phonological variables in Pittsburgh. Language Variation and Change 11:171–95.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley (1987). Language and social network. London: Basil Blackwell.
Pederson, Eric (1993). Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. In A.U. Frank & I. Campari (eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS, 294–311. Berlin: Springer.
Pederson, Eric (1995). Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and habitual language use. Cognitive Linguistics 6:33–62.Google Scholar
Pederson, Eric; Danziger, Eve; Wilkins, David; Levinson, Stephen C.; Kita, Sotaro; & Senft, Günter (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74:557–89.Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean, & Inhelder, Bärbel (1956). The child's concept of space. New York: Norton.
Pintzuk, Susan (1988). VARBRUL programs for DOS. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Department of Linguistics.
Psathas, George (1991). The structure of direction-giving in interaction. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, 195–216. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rand, David, & Sankoff, David (1990). GoldVarb: A variable rule application for the Macintosh (version 2.0) [computer program]. Montreal: Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal.
Sankoff, David (1988). Variable rules. In U. Ammon et al. (eds.), Sociolinguistics : An international handbook of the science of language and society, 2:984–97. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 75–119. New York: Free Press.
Schilling-Estes, Natalie (2000). Investigating intra-ethnic differentiation: /ay/ in Lumbee Native American English. Language Variation and Change 12:141–74.Google Scholar
Schober, Michael F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition 47:1–24.Google Scholar
Schober, Michael F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations? Discourse Processes 20:219–47.Google Scholar
Shanon, Benny (1984). Room descriptions. Discourse Processes 7:225–55.Google Scholar
Sholl, M. Jeanne (1999). Egocentric frames of reference used for the retrieval of survey knowledge learned by map and navigation. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1: 475–94.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan (1997). Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee et al. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 437–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Suzuki, Takao (1973). Kotoba to bunka [Language and culture]. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Taylor, Holly A., & Tversky, Barbara (1992a). Descriptions and depictions of environments. Memory and Cognition 20:483–96.Google Scholar
Taylor, Holly A., & Tversky, Barbara (1992b). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31:261–92.Google Scholar
Taylor, Holly A., & Tversky, Barbara (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35:371–91.Google Scholar
Tversky, Barbara (1992). Distortions in cognitive maps. Geoforum 23:131–38.Google Scholar
Tversky, Barbara (1996). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In P. Bloom et al. (eds.), Language and space, 463–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tversky, Barbara; Lee, Paul; & Mainwaring, Scott (1999). Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spatial Cognition and Computation 1:399–412.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. New York: Wiley.
Widlok, Thomas (1996). Topological gossip and the indexicality of Hai//om environmental knowledge. Wundtlaan: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Young, Richard, & Bayley, Robert (1996). VARBRUL analysis for second language acquisition research. In R. Bayley & D. Preston (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, 121–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef